Breaking Down Obama's Afghanistan Plan

Tonight, after much deliberation; President Obama has put together a decisive and calculated plan for the ongoing war in Afghanistan. He has taken heat from both sides of the aisle for what I think was smart deliberation to decide the best course of action for all involved. Some think his strategy is too strong and some think his strategy is not strong enough. I found it fitting that Obama chose to speak to American public and armed services at West Point.

The Afghanistan War was launched in the wake of the events of September 11th and was targeted for the culprits of the attacks, al Qaeda. The group of extremists was harbored in the country and a war there was meant to stifle the group and prevent any further attacks. The country, being not exactly an orderly country, was allowed to deteriorate enough and allow for the Taliban movement to emerge and with it terrorism. For all the discount with the war today, it was overwhelmingly popular when it started and was near unanimously approved by Congress. Things seemed to be going in the right direction, but a rash decision was made in 2003. That decision was to attempt to fight two wars at once with the occupation of Iraq. Instead of focusing the time, troops, money, supplies, and everything needed to be successful in war; the majority of those were put towards Iraq and things were stretched thin in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda would cross into Pakistan and establish a safe haven in the country. The Afghan government has been hampered by corruption, a poor economy, and inefficient security and attempted at times to change for the better, but the Taliban have been the biggest concern as they are not only affecting Afghanistan, but also Pakistan and their people.

Making matters worse was the fact that there were two wars being waged at the same time for much of the Bush administration. Even though, in reality, Afghanistan deserved the same amount of troops as Iraq if not more; they didn't. The troop levels in Afghanistan were a fraction of the amount in Iraq fighting a war against a lesser threat. To compare, roughly a year ago American troop levels in Afghanistan were at 32,000 while there were 160,000 American troops. A quick math perspective: that means that one country had 20% of what the other had or Iraq had 5 times as many troops. And beneath much of the conversation surrounding the Iraq War were pleas by officials in Afghanistan for more troops when the Taliban reemerged.

How did Obama respond to all this when he entered office? He approved more troops, announced a strategy recognizing the connection between the war effort in Afghanistan and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan, and a goal was set to dismantle, disrupt, and defeat al Qaeda and their allies along with a new military effort. Progress has been made with high ranking al Qaeda leaders being killed and a closer watch on them. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan, there are more soldiers and more steps being taken to ensure fair elections, fraud being reduced, and laws being upheld all at the same time as monitoring al Qaeda activity. Due to the lack of attention given to Afghanistan, the threat that could have been quelled and possibly eliminated has regained strength and spread. They are the most dangerous along the borders as opposed to in the countries in that region themselves. As generals on the ground have reported, the current state of things cannot last for much longer.

The biggest thing stressed as the speech went on was the importance of a clear strategy. Strategical errors have allowed the U.S. to get in the situation it is in now, which then trickles down to Afghanistan and the Middle East. The president took the extra time to review the national security situation along with the military and civilian aspects to allow himself to explore multiple avenues to consider before making what many would view as a tough decision. Any way you look at it, there are American lives at risks along with the national security of the world. So, what did President Obama chose to do? His choice is to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan now with the aspiration of beginning a drawback effort in the middle of 2011. Those troops level will ensure that the enemies can be fought off along with having the necessary individuals over there to allow the Afghanistan government to take over the reigns. The end objective is bring home troops under proper conditions; conditions that have a restrained al Qaeda along with a government doing the right things and working in a positive direction. Obama was against the war in Iraq and foresaw the possibility of the U.S. over using its military force.

Notably, Obama said "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow." Hence it is clear that this is unpopular decision by many including himself, but knows that it is necessary to ensure a better future in Afghanistan and fulfill what the troops' cause has been for the last eight years. The security in Afghanistan and Pakistan is at stake if we do not ask further. In order to stop al Qaeda activity you must attack it at its center and hub. The 9/11 attacks were hatched there and future attacks could be in the works as we speak. Without further action, the region will only follow even behind in terms of safety and protection from the free range of al Qaeda operatives. Al Qaeda's success hinders ours as they affect partners in the Middle East.

Despite the fact that America has taken the brunt of the burden of this war, it not just a war for America's future. Attacks have occurred in London, Madrid, and Bali. The governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are in danger of being overthrown by these extremists. The nuclear threat in today's world is very feel and al Qaeda would certainly not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if they were in possession of them. The goal then is clear: we must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government of Afghanistan. To do that, we must strengthen Afghanistan and guide it toward a more responsible future. To do this the President has outlined three ways to achieve these objectives.

The first: pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next year and a half. As part of this initiative, the President has added 30,000 additional troops to deploy early in 2010 to target the insurgency and protect key population zones. The additional troops will aide in training Afghan Security Forces and involve more of the Afghans on our side in the fight. All this will lead the way for the Afghans to take power as needed in a responsible fashion. To achieve all of this, we will certainly need contributions from our allies; as the president has asked for. Some have already begun to increase aid and the security of the Allies and the world is at stake in this war besides just the U.S. and Afghanistan. If all goes to plan with the U.S. and Allied troops working with the Afghans, the transfer of power and withdrawal of troops should begin in summer of 2011.

The second: work with our partners, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy in order for the government to take advantage of the improved security. We can no longer just let the status quo be okay. President Karzai has shown the willingness to want to move forward and enhance the ideal of credibility and accountability in Afghanistan. Improving and leaving Afghanistan better than we found it involves more than just the initiatives behind the war. They need to be on the right track with their economic and agricultural situations as well. Afghanistan has a history of violence outside of this war as al Qaeda has terrorized the country for quite some time. Not to mention, the lengthy Soviet Union occupation.

Third: acting with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is linked to our partnership with neighboring Pakistan. The disease that is al Qaeda does not only want to overtake Afghanistan; it wants to do the same to Pakistan. The border, then, becomes key in protecting both countries, especially Pakistan; an ally of ours. We must come together with Pakistan moving forward and commit ourselves to similar interests and a mutual trust. The U.S. will help strengthen Pakistan against an al Qaeda take over and an establishment of a safe-haven. The resources that the U.S. will provide will further show the Pakistanis that we want to help them.

With anything that is controversial like a war in a foreign country, there are those on both sides in the public opinion. Many who support the war will most likely back much of President Obama's agenda. But there are many who either don't or just don't like the war and feel it has gone on too long. Comparisons are made many times between this war in Afghanistan to the one in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. The main differences are we have a broader coalition today,

Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now - and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance - would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies. Some want to move forward, but with only those over there now. That will only make things worse and definitely not any better. It will allow for a slow deterioration of conditions. Not adding more troops will only become more costly and not end this war any sooner. The third and final opinion that is given is one of ignoring time frames and move toward something resembling nation-building. That idea is flawed as well as that would commit the U.S. to more time there with much uncertainty. We are working to prepare the Afghans to govern for themselves and that should be the main responsibility on the our part.

Unfortunately, with anything of this magnitude; there is a high price that comes along with our national security. The wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq have totaled about $30 trillion with an additional $30 billion to be added in the upcoming year. Along with the monetary burden, there comes a morale responsibility us and our allies. We must want to embrace a non-nuclear world with open diplomacy in place of wars. The U.S. has spent much of 2009 looking to repair any fractured partnerships in order to come together against common enemies and common injustices and problems. We have fought wars as allies and we have come to tables to discuss peace and alliances against attacks.

When the war began, the country was overcome with a patriotic feeling in the wake of one of the worst attacks on American soil. Things have changed since then as opinions have wavered both ways. The mission and purpose of the war got off track and now under the necessary troop levels and thought out plans; we must properly bring this war to a close and leave Afghanistan better than it was when we invaded it. We must use the military as well as diplomatic measures to prepare Afghanistan for a brighter future. That was what always drove past patriots in times of war; a better future for their children and grandchildren and most of all the United States of America. It will probably be unpopular by many that war will continue, but everyone must look to the big picture and see the light at the end of the tunnel. Where there is diplomacy and a want to negotiate and not fight.