President Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan changes the equation. The first reinforcements will be Marines headed for Helmand -- and a likely showdown in Marjah. There will be hard fighting ahead, just as there was last summer when Marines entered Nawa and other Taliban strongholds. But with enough resources and enough patience, there is little doubt that American troops and their Afghan allies will be able to secure key areas of southern Afghanistan that have slipped out of the government's grasp.

Then they can begin the hard work of building Afghan government capacity -- a process that has already started in Nawa, where the district governor is working closely with the Marines to provide essential services to the people. Local merchants are even taking the initiative to string power lines, previously nonexistent in this impoverished community.

The questions that remain unanswered after the president's West Point address: Will the troops have the time and resources needed to win? "Win" is a word that Obama avoided. He cited his long-standing goal of "disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist allies," but he spoke merely of his desire to "break the Taliban's momentum" rather than defeat it altogether. He spoke of wanting to "end this war successfully" but said nothing of winning the war.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Economics, Politics • Foreign Relations • Politics in General • Office of the President • President Barack Obama • War in Afghanistan

1. A Senior Priest wrote: Ok… but I’m sorry to say this but the blood of these fine men will be on the hands of those who chose to defy all history and send them to Afghanistan. I would not make such a choice. December 3, 9:31 am | [comment link]

2. evan miller wrote: If I were an Afghan official, I’d be planning my own exit strategy about now. December 3, 12:39 pm | [comment link]

3. athan-asi-us wrote: One major fallacy in Obama’s strategy is that he said the plan is to be out of Afghanistan in 18 months and let the Afghanis then go it alone. This is like Viet Nam of 1970 - the troops aren’t stupid, they know that it means the war is lost and they sure as h*** (heck for the sensitives) don’t want to be the last man to die in a lost war. Go on patrol? Forget it. Did you notice the tone and expressions on the faces of the West Point cadets listening to this “strategy”. One guy was openly reading a book with the cover title plainly displayed “Kill Osama Bin Laden”.  Point two is that he talked about stabilizing the cities. I thought the goal was to wipe out Al Queda which is controlling the countryside and growing more poppies (dope) than ever before. No wonder that even some of the Democrats (socialists) are backing off. They can’t even connect the dots in this logic. December 4, 12:06 am | [comment link]

4. athan-asi-us wrote: The more I think about the statement that his “policy is sound”, the more I want to barf. December 4, 12:13 am | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.