TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

Horror movie in Afghanistan

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: November 3, 2009

The monster that can't be killed is a common theme in horror stories. It's easy to see the Taliban of Afghanistan that way, but the analogy is misleading.

The American military can defeat foreign armies, but it cannot be expected to wipe out extremist views, kill corruption and guarantee the election of competent officials.

In deciding how many more troops to send into the fight in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama should guard against setting unrealistic goals. He must consider what's best for U.S. security and for the troops deployed there, not what may be necessary to bury the Taliban beast so deep it can never creep back.

And he must consider the United States' limited ability to guide Afghanistan's politics, which Monday swirled deeper into chaos when President Hamid Karzai was declared the winner of the presidential vote after his last remaining challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew from the runoff, which had been scheduled for Saturday.

Karzai's initial election was plagued by corruption and voting irregularities, and his agreement to a runoff was viewed as progress. But now Afghanistan's political landscape appears as rocky as the military outlook.

When he ran for the Republican nomination for president a few years ago, Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City, warned that Afghanistan "cannot be like a horror movie. You know, in the horror movie you kill the monster, and the hand re-emerges. And if you're not looking, the hand grows back and then the monster's there again. That cannot be allowed to happen."

When Obama was campaigning for the Democratic nomination, he seemed to agree. He said in 2008 that one of the biggest mistakes the United States made after Sept. 11, 2001, was to "fail to finish the job" in Afghanistan. It was easier to say then, because now he must define what "finishing the job" really means.

There is no doubt that a surge of 40,000 more troops would help quell the Taliban's revival. More villages could be protected, more missions accomplished.

October has been the deadliest month for American forces in the eight-year war. The public's doubts about the benefits of continuing the war come just when the military is asking for more. If victory is defined as keeping civilians safe, preventing terrorists from dominating the government and generally creating stability, it can be done in that primitive tribal area.

Obama has been told what it will take to knock down the resurgent Taliban fighters. He cannot know how long the military will have to hold them down - or at what price.

In recent congressional testimony, a Pentagon spokesman said that each gallon of gasoline used in Afghanistan costs $400, when all expenses of getting the fuel to remote bases are considered. The Marines there are burning about $320 million worth of fuel each day.

And the average total cost of each additional troop sent to Afghanistan is $1 million a year. Those are some scary expenses, even if the U.S. economy were booming.

Obama also faces potentially ugly politics. If he pulls out, he will be called weak and blamed for losing the war.

If he holds steady, he will be accused of being indecisive.

If he surges in the troops the military needs, he will be accused of escalating a war he doesn't know how to win.

Obama has the toughest decision, but all Americans need to ask themselves a few hard questions, too.

Are we taxpayers willing to pay higher rates to cover the apparently endless costs of the war?

If it's not that important to us, are we justified in asking our sons and daughters to keep fighting and dying there?

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT