Obama’s Afghanistan Deliberation: Prudence or Procrastination? By Lang Sias

President Obama has consistently labeled Afghanistan the war America cannot afford to lose. Last March, he announced a “stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy,” undertaken after “a careful policy review,” and subsequently hand-picked one of America’s most respected military officers, General Stanley McChrystal, to lead the effort.

Yet with General McChrystal’s report in and the bill for Obama’s “war of necessity” coming due, bold rhetoric is giving way to equivocation. Increasingly, the President appears to be saving political capital for domestic priorities at the expense of national security, and our troops.

The President was clearly entitled to time for careful deliberation before deploying additional resources. But the glacial pace of those deliberations, especially for an administration committed to “the fierce urgency of now” in its domestic agenda, suggests that prudence is becoming a smokescreen for procrastination.

We are told that the administration is conducting a comprehensive review of Afghan strategy. Fine. But this prompts the question of what sort of analysis was undertaken before the President’s March announcement. Little that has transpired in the last several months, including the need for additional troops or a deeply flawed election, can have come as a shock to an administration that had recently conducted a thorough strategic review and maintained awareness of the situation on the ground.

We've also heard the suggestion that the small number of al Qaeda fighters currently in Afghanistan render that theatre less of a priority. That’s difficult to reconcile with the President’s assertion scarcely two months ago that “those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

Most recently, we’ve been told that the administration wants to assure that we have a responsible partner in the Afghan government. Again, a legitimate wish. But no reasonable person expects the Founding Brothers to appear in Kabul any time soon. And the enemy, who has a vote, will not provide the luxury of unlimited time. Ultimately, the President will have to decide whether to provide enhanced security to a struggling Afghan society with a highly imperfect government, or bet that a minimal U.S. counter-terrorism presence will prevent Afghanistan from degenerating back into chaos.

The President may choose the latter option, but he must explain how it differs from the Rumsfeld strategy he has criticized, and why he is rejecting the recommendation of the most experienced counter-terrorism officer in the United States military.

In any case, a decision must come soon, first, because the status quo will weaken America. Current troop levels are inadequate to stop the insurgents, and we know from experience that Taliban control will render Afghanistan an incubator for anti-American terror. A vulnerable Afghanistan will also undermine Pakistan’s long overdue offensive in Waziristan, by providing sanctuary to fleeing insurgents. Finally, an American defeat will embolden our enemies, improve terrorist recruiting and undermine the confidence of allies and potential allies.

But perhaps even more important, the status quo is morally reprehensible. If the President elects to leave our service people in harm’s way without adequate resources, many of them will die or be wounded without ever having had any possibility of success. Done knowingly and as a domestic political calculation, this would be the most cynical abuse imaginable of our brave warriors and their families.

Mr. President, you know the right way forward. You and other democrats campaigned on it when it was politically advantageous, and barely two months ago, you reiterated that “...there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight. And we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick. This will not be easy. But we must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity...This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

In the two months since you uttered those words, very little has changed except for the increasing domestic political cost of carrying them out. Every day overseas, young sergeants and lieutenants risk everything making decisions that place America’s interests above their own. Hopefully, your administration will emulate these selfless Americans when considering next steps in Afghanistan.

“Lang Sias is a veteran of the First and Second Gulf Wars, and was an instructor at the Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). He is currently serving as a Lt. Col. In the Air National Guard. He was the National Veterans Director for John McCain’s 2008 Presidential campaign. He lives in Arvada, Colorado.”