American Missive

ATLANTA— Barack Obama announced his new Afghanistan strategy yesterday in a press conference.  A summary of Mr. Obama’s plan, according to the USA Today, is provided at the bottom of this missive. While some of the specifics of this proposal make me hesitant (particularly the piece that involves increased economic aide to Pakistan), I am supportive of the plan in general.  I think Mr. Obama is taking reasonable and important policy positions with respect to the war in Afghanistan.  These policies are at odds with his more liberal base of supporters, which is giving rise to a series of liberal protests of his efforts there.  Nonetheless, I think that if they are executed well, they will be an important step towards enhancing our national security, while also restoring stability and freedom to a troubled Afghan people.

I am supportive of Mr. Obama’s efforts principally because I believe the war in Afghanistan has always been linked to our national security interests.  Afghanistan was a haven for terrorist organizations throughout the 1990′s and our ignoring of the rise of the Taliban in that decade came back to haunt us on September 11th.  I believe the establishment of a democratic society and stable economy there will be fundamental to offsetting the ability of international terrorist groups to project violence to the western world.  There is also the chance it could become a model for governance to a troubled region of the globe.

The main reason I am posting this missive, though, is to point out that Mr. Obama is taking us down a dangerous path, one which Lyndon Johnson famously took us down in the 1960′s.  And that is the path of increasing a war effort while simultaneously expanding government spending at home.  Giving us both guns and butter.  Both are massively expensive and the expansion of both simultaneously can lead to disastrous consequences.  The economic malaise of the 1970′s was a direct consequence of Mr. Johnson’s excesses in the 1960′s, in my opinion. 

In my view, one is necessary for national security (Afghan war), while the other is largely unnecessary (domestic government spending). 

Mr. Obama should pick and choose his battles.  He is attempting to take on too much at once.  I will say that it appears spectacular now. He appears almost superhuman in taking on so many initiatives here at the onset of his presidency.  But history will judge him not by the start of these initiatives, but rather by the finish.  Mr. Johnson finished in ruin, rejected by the public in 1968 after having won resoundingly in 1964.   Mr. Obama could face the same fate, should he fail as spectacularly for having taken on too much both domestically and abroad.

The money needed to finance all of this at once does not grow on trees.  It will come through either more borrowing, more taxes, or by ramping up the printing presses (as the Federal Reserve has recently done).  And the combination of these things will be devestating for the economy.

To Mr. Obama, I say: clean your plate and pick the most essential battles.  Government-funded health care, stimulus spending, and cap-and-trade energy policies should be abandoned.  They will be costly, disruptive and ultimately unhelpful, in my view. Domestically, you will do well to focus mainly on the financial sector, as that is at the root of our economic crisis.   In turn, this will free up resources to devote to your plan in Afghanistan, which I believe is essential to the preservation of our national security.

 SUMMARY OF BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR AFGHAN WAR 

President Obamaannounced Friday a proposal to stem the worsening insurgency in Afghanistan by sending 4,000 more U.S. troops and additional civilian aid workers, while also increasing aid to neighboring Pakistan.

Obamasaid his objective is to suppress the spreading insurgency by placing more emphasis on building local governments, wooing the civilian population with aid and providing more help to the Afghan army instead of a deploying a large number of combat troops.

…Key elements of the plan include:

• Sending the 4,000 new troops, who would train Afghan soldiers and police. The plan includes a goal of having 134,000 soldiers in the Afghan army, up from about 65,000 soldiers now. “That is how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our troops home,” Obama said.

  Adding the extra trainers is “an excellent idea,” said Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama’s Republican opponent for the presidency last year. “The Afghan army has to be dramatically increased.”

• Creating a standing network for talks between the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. “Our nations will meet regularly,” Obama said, with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates leading the talks.

• Pushing for passage of two bipartisan congressional plans to provide more economic aid to Pakistan. One, sponsored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., would increase non-military aid by $1.5 billion a year for five years. The second, sponsored by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Reps. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., and Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., would create “opportunity zones” in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan where many Taliban insurgents now hide.

• Sending hundreds more civilian aid workers to Afghanistan “to advance security, opportunity and justice,” Obamasaid. Clinton, he said, would push for more civilian aid from “our partners and allies, from the United Nations and internationalaid organizations” at an international conference next week in the Netherlands.

• Increasing the budget for inspector generals in the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to weed out “unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts and wasteful reconstruction,” Obama said. Previous studies of U.S. civilian aid programs have found significant problems in U.S. aid efforts in Afghanistan. Last month, USA TODAY reported that six different audits conducted last year by USAID’s inspector found only one program working largely as it was supposed to.

• Using the U.N. to create a new “Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan” that will bring together NATO allies, Russia, China, India, Central Asian republics, nations in the Persian Gulf and Iran. “None of these nations benefit from a base for al-Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos,” Obama said. “All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.”

The latest troop commitment gives Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander there, roughly the amount of troops he said he needed late last year. McKiernan asked for double the 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. President Bush committed 6,000 troops, and Obama’s commitment of 21,000 brings the total number of troops to 59,000.

The plan could increase the $2 billion monthly cost for Afghanistan by 60%.