Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Media Reports: Obama To Send 34,000 More Troops To Afghanistan

General McChrystal gave the President three options on Afghanistan: A low-risk plan requiring 80,000 more troops, a medium-risk plan requiring 40,000 more troops, and a high-risk plan requiring 20,000 more troops.

Obama has apparently, if these reports are accurate, opted to go between the high-risk and medium-risk plans with 34,000 more troops.

President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn’t originate in the White House.

As much as I believe in the mission in Afghanistan, and as much as I believe it would be a mistake to withdraw, I think I would rather see us pull our troops out and end the war then go forward at this point with Obama’s decision.

If we are going to commit our troops to the battlefield I think we need to be committed to winning. “Go big or go home.” Our commander in Afghanistan offered the President a low-risk solution to the war. Obama opted to undercut that solution for the sake of political expediency.

If that’s how Obama’s going to lead on the war, if he’s going to be more worried about political calculations and keeping up the appearance of standing by his campaign promises on Afghanistan than actually winning the war, then let’s give up. Let’s bring the troops home and stop the charade.

The blood of our soldiers, and to a much lesser degree our tax dollars, are too important to play these sorts of games with.

No comments: