A tough but necessary decision

Realities trump desires and geopolitical urgency rules over campaign promises. The options for the war in Afghanistan are few and a withdrawal of U.S. troops under current conditions would be irresponsible, with the effect of destabilizing the region.

President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops follows the "surge" strategy used in Iraq. At the same time, it sets ambitious targets including retaking lost territories, strengthening Afghan security forces, and imposing anti-corruption reforms on President Karzai’s government. There are various, complementary battle fronts for achieving the goal of a stable situation without the presence of Al Qaeda and its allies.

Just as important as sending troops is bringing them home. For this reason we support the fact that there is a clear plan, with specific timelines, to avoid an endless commitment. Respect for the troops demands a planned scope of engagement.

In general, this strategy poses great risks, since it defies Afghanistan’s long history, in which all foreign military forces have withdrawn in defeat. Even so, the options are limited.

This is a necessary war that arose out of 9/11. The goal of finding Bin Laden remains, but much more important is preventing a victory for Islamic extremism that could further embolden the enemies of Pakistan’s current government. This is a global threat that requires greater international participation. We will see whether international support for Obama will be transferred to his policy when he needs it most, as in this case.

Increasing troops in Afghanistan comes at a high political and economic cost for the White House. Support for the war is down among Americans and spending additional billions of dollars in the midst of a serious economic crisis is far from popular. Now it is up to the president to make the tough decisions that candidate Obama hoped he would not have to make.

Realities trump desires and geopolitical urgency rules over campaign promises. The options for the war in Afghanistan are few and a withdrawal of U.S. troops under current conditions would be irresponsible, with the effect of destabilizing the region.

President Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops follows the "surge" strategy used in Iraq. At the same time, it sets ambitious targets including retaking lost territories, strengthening Afghan security forces, and imposing anti-corruption reforms on President Karzai’s government. There are various, complementary battle fronts for achieving the goal of a stable situation without the presence of Al Qaeda and its allies.

Just as important as sending troops is bringing them home. For this reason we support the fact that there is a clear plan, with specific timelines, to avoid an endless commitment. Respect for the troops demands a planned scope of engagement.

In general, this strategy poses great risks, since it defies Afghanistan’s long history, in which all foreign military forces have withdrawn in defeat. Even so, the options are limited.

This is a necessary war that arose out of 9/11. The goal of finding Bin Laden remains, but much more important is preventing a victory for Islamic extremism that could further embolden the enemies of Pakistan’s current government. This is a global threat that requires greater international participation. We will see whether international support for Obama will be transferred to his policy when he needs it most, as in this case.

Increasing troops in Afghanistan comes at a high political and economic cost for the White House. Support for the war is down among Americans and spending additional billions of dollars in the midst of a serious economic crisis is far from popular. Now it is up to the president to make the tough decisions that candidate Obama hoped he would not have to make.

• volver arriba