Obama adopts proper stance in dealing with Afghanistan

President Barack Obama has repeatedly said in recent days that he will not be rushed into making a decision about sending more American troops to Afghanistan — and he shouldn’t be. When the commander-in-chief puts our young men and women in harm’s way, he must be absolutely convinced that the reasons are sound and the goals attainable.

The Democratic president is right to ignore demands from various quarters, including Republicans in Congress, that he act expeditiously. As he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face.”

The question Obama must be able to answer with great clarity is this: Will the deployment of more American soldiers result in the destruction of the Taliban militants who are determined to reverse the course of democracy in Afghanistan, and the death of Osama bin Laden, the world’s leading terrorist, and his al-Qaida terror organization?

It is true that the war in Afghanistan has worsened and that the Taliban, which ruled the country with an Islamic iron fist prior to the U.S.-led invasion in October 2001, has been making inroads in remote provinces. The invasion was ordered by then-President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America’s homeland after it was determined that most of the terrorists were trained in al-Qaida’s camps in Afghanistan.

The goal then was to topple the Taliban rulers and destroy al-Qaida’s leadership structure. Bin Laden was the primary target. But just as coalition forces were zeroing in on him and members of his inner circle — they were holed up in caves in the mountainous region — President Bush decided to invade Iraq. American troops were pulled out of Afghanistan and sent to Baghdad.

That opened the door for Taliban forces, backed by al-Qaida, to launch their comeback.

Although Obama has increased the number of troops since taking office in January, his stated goal remains the dismantling of terrorist havens, especially in the tribal areas in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan. As he pointed out this week, the United States remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks so long as the networks are intact.

More forces?

Indeed, while the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is urging the deployment of more forces within the year to avoid a failure of the eight-year mission, there are others inside and outside the administration who see greater need for a hard-hitting campaign against terrorist groups.

If a decision is made to send more troops, the president must tell the American people where these soldiers will come from, given that the military is already stretched thin, and how soon he expects Afghanistan’s police and military to be able operate without the support of the U.S. and NATO.

Obama must take his time weighing all the differing opinions against the backdrop of America’s safety.

While a return of the Taliban in Afghanistan would be against the interests of the United States and its NATO allies, it is the European countries that should be most worried. And yet, they are showing little interest in continuing to have a military presence.

On the other hand, the Pakistani government, while publicly opposed to the presence of American troops in the border region, has cooperated in missions involving unmanned drones armed with missiles.

Gen. McChryastal’s dire warning about failure has grabbed the headlines, but his contention that American forces have not done enough to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people is just as noteworthy.

The people of Afghanistan must be convinced that their lives will be better with a democratically elected government and with western nations helping to rebuild their war-torn country.

A show of military force isn’t the only way to accomplish that goal.