Obama Readies Afghan Escalation

Don't look for surprises from President Obama on Afghanistan. During
the two year campaign, and since taking office, he's been consistent.
For Obama, Afghanistan is the right war, and he's staked his presidency
on winning it. In order to placate the liberal-left and its allies in
Congress, Obama is putting out the word (from the National Security
Council) that he's willing to listen to all points of view, including
those who believe that it's time to cut and run. Listen, he will. Cut
and run, he won't.

The big papers today are full of showdown talk. "US Buildup: A Necessity?" headlines the New York Times,
citing George Will-style alternatives such as fighting Al Qaeda long
distance, via intelligence, Predator drones, and US special forces. The
Times likens the conflict to a "quagmire with a muddled
mission," but it then cites a litany of experts from the
terrorism-industrial complex explaining why the US can't scale back its
commitment. The Washington Post headlines Afghanistan as a "pivotal moment" for Obama. But after raising questions about US strategy, the Post
answers them, too, suggesting that the US can't back down because of
"the stakes involved and the investment already made." Also in the Post,
columnist Anne Applebaum stresses the importance of the war, adding:
"Obama needs to cajole and convince [and] campaign, in other words, and
campaign hard."

A passel of neoconservatives, under the leadership of the Foreign Policy Initiative --
a group founded earlier this year as a reconstituted version of the
Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for a New American
Century -- has written to Obama urging
him to stand fast. It's ironic, since unlike 2001-2004, when they had
plenty of co-thinkers inside government, this time the neocons are on
the outside looking in, with few if any friends inside the White House.
But that doesn't stop them from providing free advice, calling on the
president to "fully resource" the war, i.e., to escalate it. In its
letter, the FPI crowd, including Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, warns:

Since the announcement of your administration's new
strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American
forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war.

And they add:

There is no middle course. Incrementally committing
fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead
to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the
errors of the past.

There is, of course, a middle course, and that's the path that Obama
(unfortunately) is likely to take. According to media accounts, General
McChrystal is recommending a low-end boost of troops (circa 10,000 -
15,000) and a high-end increase of 45,000, while putting a Goldilocks
middle course of an additional 25,000 US forces smack dab in the
center. I'd consider it a foregone conclusion that Obama will select
the middle course, leading the liberal-left to despair and angering the
far right. (Put me in the despair category.)

It's health care week, so don't expect the White House to tip its
hand just yet on the war. But they've asked for $68 billion for 2010
for the Afghanistan conflict (compared to $61 billion for the
winding-down war in Iraq), and in his recent speeches Obama has
described Afghanistan as a necessary war in defense of core US national
security interests.

As an example of how absurdly apocalyptic the pro-war voices are, consider Bret Stephens in today's Wall Street Journal, who describes the war in Afghanistan as a civilizational turning point akin to the fall of the Roman Empire:

So George Will has noticed that Afghanistan is a
backward place ill-suited to nation-building, and Nicholas Kristof
thinks that war is a tricky, dirty business, and Tom Friedman is
hedging his bets on yet another conflict he once supported but which
now disturbs his moral equilibrium. Thus do three paladins of the
right, left and center combine to erode support for a war that, if
lost, would be to the United States roughly what the battle of
Adrianople in 378 A.D. --you can look it up--was to the Roman Empire.
Things did not go well for Western civilization for 1,100 or so years
thereafter.

Overstated? I don't think so.

Hear that? Pull out of Afghanistan and face a thousand years of darkness.