Afghanistan - At Afghan Crossroads
Jules Witcover

Ongoing war in Afghanistan
(c) M. Ryder

The leak of Gen. Stanley McChrystal's sober assessment of the war in Afghanistan puts greatly increased pressure on President Obama in weighing whether to press on with the ambitious counterinsurgency recommended or chart a new direction.

McChrystal, only recently sent to Kabul as U.S. and NATO commander to tackle the revitalized Taliban insurgency, doesn't mince words in his previously secret 66-page document. He warns Obama that unless he basically stays the course by providing additional American troops and other resources, the outcome "is likely to result in mission failure."

The leak, obtained by The Washington Post, suggests opposition within the administration to anything resembling the 2007-08 surge in Iraq, particularly with the political uncertainty in Afghanistan in the wake of the challenged re-election of President Hamid Karzai.

It comes on the heels of a recent statement by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also indicating that the situation "probably needs more forces." But that did not prevent Obama from saying on his Sunday round of television talk shows that he will first assess the validity of the whole Afghan mission and strategy before deciding on troop levels.

The president, in fact, left the impression that he is doing basic soul-searching on whether this is the time to reconsider the whole role of the American involvement in the region, initiated in the wake of, and justified by, the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In his CNN appearance, he pointedly asked, "Are we pursuing the right strategy?" And on NBC he said unless he was "satisfied" about that, he wasn't going to send any more young Americans in harm's way. He indicated that if the strategy was aimed at the al-Qaida perpetrators he would proceed, but if not he wasn't going to be in Afghanistan just for the sake of being there, or just "sending a message" that America was there "for the duration."

The original motivation for going into the country remains valid, and successes have been claimed in diminishing al-Qaida's strength and effectiveness. But the fact that Osama bin Laden remains alive and uncaptured stands as a mocking reminder of the declared and unfinished business of the previous administration.

The longer the war against the Taliban takes on the appearance of a replay of the concerted effort at nation-building that drags on in Iraq, the harder it will be for Obama to justify the greater engagement sought by McChrystal.

This is particularly so as American casualties in Iraq, while greatly reduced, continue to trickle in.

Congress and much of the public may well be able to accept intellectually that pressing on in Afghanistan is a legitimate mission unaccomplished, and nothing would bolster support at home more than getting bin Laden. But short of that, the struggle in the Afghan/Pakistani theater may seem increasingly a battleground devoid of basic American self-interest.

The most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found 51 percent of Americans surveyed now say the war is "not worth fighting," and within Afghanistan itself, the same resentment of the presence of U.S forces seen in Iraq -- more as occupiers than liberators -- magnifies the difficulty for the American military stationed there.

Liberal Democrats in Congress who attempted without success to bring about swifter withdrawal from Iraq eye with wariness and even trepidation the Pentagon shift of emphasis and manpower from Iraq to Afghanistan. They see it as another indication of revisiting the Vietnam-era thinking of mindless escalation.

But Obama, for all his early characterization of Iraq as "a dumb war" that never should have been fought, has never bought into abandonment of the mission in either Iraq or Afghanistan. His response seems much more likely to proceed in the latter with a cautious and disciplined counterinsurgency short of a Bush-like surge that may not satisfy either the hawks or the doves.

In the end, Obama's desire to pursue his own ambitious domestic agenda, something not conspicuously present in the George W. Bush years, may well keep him more determined to find a respectable exit strategy not predicated on Bush's elusive quest of a vaguely defined "victory."

Afghanistan - Going Where in Afghanistan?
Jules Witcover

Two new public-opinion polls say most Americans surveyed believe the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan, and in one of them a clear majority say no more American troops should be sent there.

Afghanistan - Mission of Ignorance
Robert C. Koehler

Right up there with 'our mission,' in the pantheon of sacred foreign policy mumbo-jumbo, is 'training Afghan security forces,' that endless, multibillion-dollar prerequisite for our departure from the country. We've been training a local army and police force for eight years now to take on the good and noble task of defending U.S. interests. Yet ...

Afghanistan - Situation in Afghanistan is Serious
Robert C. Koehler

The situation in Afghanistan is serious. We're getting 'out-governed' by an enemy so ruthless it's bringing services to a desperate people ignored by the legitimate government we installed. But our eight-year quagmire . . . excuse me, war . . . can still be won, says Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in that country, who recently completed a review of the situation

Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan and Memories of Indochina
William Pfaff

The United States is in Afghanistan for its own reasons. The Afghan president said what he did to encourage the U.S. to keep him their man in Kabul. If the Afghan people should decide that he's nothing more than an American puppet, they will get rid of him. But Washington will get rid of him, too, since he would have lost his plausibility, and hence his value

Afghanistan - At Afghan Crossroads

(c) 2009 Tribune Media Services, Inc.