What is the Exit Strategy for Obama's Asian War?

The surge has worked in Iraq. In 2006, the widespread belief of many in Washington, such as the Iraq Study Group, and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, was that the war was lost, and that we had no alternative but to withdrawal in defeat. History will record that the legacy of the George W. Bush Presidency is victory in Iraq. There seems to be no doubt that despite some danger and setbacks, the signed exit agreement for withdrawal negotiated by the Bush administration will play out by 2010. There is now a relatively stable democracy in Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors and friendly to the United States. This was the goal outlined by General Colin Powell and continued by Condeleeza Rice. This successful model may not apply to Afghanistan for many reasons.

After winning the Iraq War, there will be no peace dividend as there was after winning the first Gulf War of 1991. The new President, Barack Obama, has decided to expand the war in Asia, by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Before we get fully committed to this adventure, could somebody please tell me, what is our exit strategy in Afghanistan?

The present justification of the war, as I understand it, is to stop the Taliban from seizing control in Afghanistan. This goal is changing before our eyes into "stop the Taliban in Pakistan, they could get nuclear bombs..." The Taliban are militant Islamics who have adopted terror tactics like beheading and suicide bombing. No serious observer of the militant Islamics would deny that the present Pakistani Government and Military is replete with infiltrators, and Taliban collaborators. Stopping them will be very difficult, if not impossible, without decimating the militant tribes in Pakistan. Chief among these militant tribes are the Pashtuns, a traditionally warlike people. Are we prepared to expand the war to Pakistan? There are many tribes in this large mountainous region, the present national boundaries are a legacy of British Colonialism, and never truly coincided with the tribes traditional boundaries. This has proven a recipe for endless border conflict.

To some extent, with special raids and missile strikes, we already have expanded the war to Pakistan. What is the exit strategy for Pakistan? If we do continue to expand the war, what is the level of commitment that will insure victory? By all accounts, the net effect of the present level of low level war in Pakistan by the United States is to recruit more Taliban. How many troops must we commit to kill more Taliban than we create?

A related goal to stopping the Taliban on all fronts is the capture or killing of the remaining 911 Al Quaida masterminds, such as Al Zawahiri. Osama Bin Laden is by many reports, dead. We are on track to redeploy 21,000 troops to a new war. Given the size and difficulty of the terrain, this number of troops is inadequate, and will be opposed by an equal or greater expansion of Al Quaida and the Taliban.

According to the Pentagon, the US will replace its top general in Afghanistan as President Barack Obama tries to turn around a losing war. General McKiernan, on the job for about a year, has asked repeatedly for additional forces. Obama's new plan for Afghanistan does markedly increase the number of U.S. forces in the country but focuses on nonmilitary solutions as a better long-term solution. While these non-military solutions remain unclear, no serious observer of the Afghan war believes that the addition of 21,000 troops will stabilize the situation. By expanding the war, choosing a new Ambassador, and a new General, Barack has made the war in Asia his own.

In 2005, Donald Rumsfeld ignored and downplayed many requests from the field for more troops in Iraq. Most observers now see this as the crucial error which allowed the war in Iraq to spiral to the brink of loss. Afghanistan is larger and more rugged than Iraq, General McKiernan is apparently being relieved of command for requesting more troops than Washington is prepared to send. Military officials are hinting that McKiernan will be replaced by Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal. McChrystal has the reputation of a fierce warrior; is he really the man to implement non-military solutions?

In the eight years of war since 2001, the Taliban have nursed their wounds, recouped and continued to fight, as they have throughout history. Other regional nations have much more to lose by the spread of nuclear weapons to the Taliban via a collapse of the Pakistani Government than the United States. Given that a military solution is not possible with the present and contemplated level of troops, is it not time to practice a containment policy for militant Islam by engaging India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and others in a NATO style framework for mutual defense against never ending war?

The above material and assertions are the opinion of the Author, and therefore not subject permission or review, as the author , and the author's recollections are the sole source.