[BRIGADE] PJB: Obama at the Rubicon
Published: Tue, 09/08/09
by Patrick J. Buchanan
If the aphorism holds -- the guerrilla wins if he does not lose --
the Taliban are winning and America is losing the war in
Afghanistan.
Well into the eighth year of war, the Taliban are more numerous
than ever, inflicting more casualties than ever, operating in more
provinces than ever and controlling more territory than ever. And
their tactics are more sophisticated.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal calls the situation "serious." Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullen calls it "serious" and
"deteriorating."
President Obama thus faces a decision that may decide the fate of
his presidency. For if the situation is grave and deteriorating, he
cannot do nothing. Inaction invites, if it does not assure, defeat.
Does he cut U.S. losses, write off Afghanistan as not worth any
more American blood and treasure, and execute a strategic retreat?
Or does he become the war president who sends McChrystal the scores
of thousands of U.S. troops necessary to stave off a defeat for all
the years needed to conscript and train an Afghan army that can and
will defend the Kabul regime and pacify the country?
Afghanistan is being called Obama's Vietnam.
It could become that, and bring down his presidency as Vietnam
brought down Lyndon Johnson's. But Afghanistan is not yet Vietnam
in terms either of troops committed or casualties taken.
The 68,000 Americans who will be in Afghanistan at year's end are
an eighth of the forces in Vietnam when Richard Nixon began to
bring them home. Vietnam cost the lives of 58,000 Americans. The
Afghan war has cost fewer than 1,000. U.S. casualties in
Afghanistan are as yet only a fifth of the U.S. losses in the
Philippine Insurrection of 1899-1902.
If we compare Afghanistan to Vietnam, we are about in 1964, when
the Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed and the bombing of the North
began, or December 1965, when the Marines came ashore at Danang.
Obama can still choose not to fight this war.
But should he so choose, he will be charged by Republicans and
neoconservatives with a loss of nerve, with having cut and run,
with having lost what he himself has repeatedly called a "war of
necessity," with having abandoned the noble cause for which many of
America's best and bravest have already paid the ultimate price.
And it needs be said: The consequences of a U.S. withdrawal today
would be far greater than if we had never gone in, or had gone in,
knocked over the Taliban, run al-Qaida out of the country, gotten
out and gone home.
Instead, we brought NATO in, put tens of thousands of troops in and
declared our determination to build an Afghan democracy that would
be a model for the Islamic world, where women's rights were
protected.
After inviting the world to observe how the superpower succeeds in
taking down a tyranny and creating a democracy, we will have
failed, and we will be perceived by the whole world to have failed.
While there was no vital U.S. interest in Afghanistan before we
went in, we have invested so much blood, money and prestige that
withdrawal now -- which would entail a Taliban takeover of Kabul and
the Pashtun south and east -- would be a strategic debacle
unprecedented since the fall of Saigon.
But what if Obama approves McChrystal's request and puts another
20,000 to 40,000 U.S. troops into the war?
Certainly, that would stave off any defeat. But what is the
assurance it would bring enduring victory closer? The Taliban have
matched us escalation for escalation and are now militarily
stronger than at any time since the Northern Alliance, with U.S.
air support, ran them out of Kabul.
About the political consequences of escalation, there is no doubt.
Obama would divide his party and country. His support would
steadily sink as the roll call of U.S. dead and wounded inexorably
rose. He would watch as the NATO allies moved toward the exit and
America was left alone to fight alongside the Afghans in a
seemingly endless war.
Consider. If there were no Americans in Afghanistan today, and the
Taliban were on the verge of victory, how many of us would demand
the dispatch of 68,000 troops to fight to prevent it? Few, if any,
one imagines.
What that answer suggests is that the principal reason for fighting
on is not that Afghanistan is vital, but that we cannot accept the
American defeat and humiliation that withdrawal would mean.
Thus Obama's dilemma: Accept a longer, bloodier war with little
hope of ultimate victory, a decision that could cost him his
presidency. Or order a U.S. withdrawal and accept defeat, a
decision that could cost him his presidency.
In such situations, presidents often decide not to decide.
Harry Truman could not decide in Korea. LBJ could not decide in
Vietnam. Both lost their presidencies. Ike and Nixon came in, cut
U.S. losses and got out. The country rewarded both with second
terms.
--------
Want to comment on Pat's column? Visit our site at:
http://buchanan.org/blog/obama-at-the-rubicon-2117