Published: November 07, 2009 11:11 pm         

TRIBUNE-STAR EDITORIAL: Escalation of Afghan war is no decision to be made in haste

President Obama’s careful approach should be supported

Partisan politics aside, it is understandable that many people in this nation are anxious for President Barack Obama to make a sweeping decision about U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. We have been there eight years. The situation has deteriorated greatly over the past 18 months. U.S. and Allied troops are suffering increasing casualties.

The president’s choices seem to be limited: Do we expand the Afghan war, exponentially and indefinitely, as his generals on the ground have requested, or do we abandon the idea of conquering terrorism through traditional warfare and pursue a less established path?

Limited choices should not, however, be confused with simple choices. Despite the repeated use of the demeaning word “dither” by President Obama’s critics, his refusal to rush headlong into such a far-reaching decision should be supported instead of belittled.

The commitment to war is not a television game show in which contestants have 30 seconds, complete with tension-building music, to choose one answer or another. The commitment to expand and extend a war with an overtaxed, all-volunteer military is a huge act, from both a practical and philosophical standpoint. Making that commitment in one troubled country, which is surrounded by several other countries teetering on the edge of lethal instability, is the polar opposite of simple.

The president’s impatient critics would have us believe that the only experts who matter all agree on expansion and escalation of the war in Afghanistan. That is not remotely true. Plenty of evidence exists to give a commander in chief pause, whether it is in recently discovered documents that reveal the tragic and expensive nine years the Soviet Union’s military waged futile war in Afghanistan or in the pleas of a former U.S. Marine captain.

That retired Marine officer, Matthew Hoh, has risked character assassination and a dangerous loss of privacy by speaking out about what he has observed in Afghanistan, most recently as a U.S. Foreign Service representative. In an online Q&A session sponsored by the Washington Post, Hoh was blunt about the misguided notion that al-Qaida can be defeated through war in Afghanistan. (Note: Hoh uses an alternative spelling of the terrorist group.)

“Since 9/11, al Qaeda have evolved into an ideological cloud that exists on the Internet and recruits world wide,” Hoh wrote. “… Simply put, al Qaeda does not exist in Afghanistan, and 60,000 troops with the hope of stabilizing the Afghan central government, which may or may not succeed in 5 to 10 years time, will not defeat al Qaeda.”

In answer to a question about U.S. readiness to enter World War II, Hoh responded: “This isn’t WW II and there shouldn’t be a comparison. No one can kill better in this world than the U.S. military, however, if killing was the means to victory, we would have ‘won’ this years ago. This is primarily a political fight.”

More than once in the last 40 years, impatience and a lack of genuine, thoughtful research into why we invade a country (or why we stay in one, year after year) have cost many American lives and multibillions of dollars — for little or no gain. With all the other crises and serious problems we face here and abroad, the United States president is in no position to commit the same kind of errors of impatience again. Let Mr. Obama make an informed and careful decision.