Supporting the surge

There are many reasons we should keep fighting in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama tried to make that case in his West Point address Tuesday, but I am not sure if he succeeded.

He unveiled that he was deploying 30,000 more troops: the right choice. But he packaged that escalation with a withdrawal timeline, making his commitment less clear.

Many critics of a surge see the war as an inconvenience. Besides being inconsistent with the softer foreign policy many liberals hoped for from Obama, many on the left fear a greater military commitment will suck away the Democrat’s energy to act on domestic issues.

The naysayers are disappointingly eager to make excuses for a quick withdrawal; they are greatly mistaken.

Afghanistan is a difficult mess, but not an unsolvable one. Refocusing America and NATO’s efforts with more troops and a better strategy can give this war a better ending and make the world a much safer and freer place, especially for the people of Afghanistan.

The case for sticking with Afghanistan is complex but clear. The country could be used as a base for future terrorism. Al-Qaeda no longer has as much of a presence in the country, but that could change quickly when western troops leave.

And even if it is unlikely that another attack like 9/11 will be planned in Afghanistan, the withdrawal of western forces before the country is secure will make it easier for extremists to attack neighboring countries like Pakistan.

The threat regional conflicts pose to global security are harder to quantify to voters than attacks like the ones in New York, but they are just as real.

Finally, leaving Afghanistan in good condition is integral to the fate of the Afghan people. The gains in security and human rights from when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan are small, but significant.

Too many critics urge a quick withdrawal without really confronting the terrible amounts of human suffering in Afghanistan that is likely to result. America cannot remake every problematic country, but we are already in Afghanistan and have on opportunity to make many lives better before we leave.

Most of the arguments against the troop surge Obama is moving forward with rely on the assumption that we can do little to really change the political fabric of Afghanistan (or any other country) and that even the best intentions will eventually backfire.  

Some of this stems from the unfortunate tendency of many to try and relive the Vietnam anti-war movement. But much criticism is grounded in the reality that the people of Afghanistan need to do more to change their own country.

The current constitution is barely working. The country needs more competent bureaucrats and less corruption.

But no reforms will have a chance without the troops needed for security.
Finishing the fight in Afghanistan will be hard, but President Obama (at least until we see how serious he is about his timeline) is willing to accept the need for action.
He needs more Americans to do the same.