What good will 40,000 troops accomplish?

WE SAY Don’t let failure take hold in Afghanistan.

Nathan Dixon is a junior majoring in economics and math.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll found Americans evenly divided when asked about sending more troops to Afghanistan. About 48 percent of those polled supported such an increase, but 45 percent opposed it.

Afghanistan was supposed to be the good. The growing confusion about why we are still fighting eight years later is just one sign Afghanistan is a war we could lose.

President Obama, who was committed to Afghanistan on the campaign trail, is about to decide on a strategy that could include sending 40,000 more troops to the country. If he is really committed to turning the tide, he should move forward with the troop increases.

The debate about such a troop surge has become increasingly acrimonious recently, especially given a speech by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan who made the request for additional troops. McChrystal told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies in London that he would not support a plan that relied on drone missiles or special forces in place of more troops.

It is important not to lose sight of what is really on the table. Vice President Joe Biden has been trying to push Obama away from a troop increase in Afghanistan, but Obama has shown no signs that he will recommend a dramatic reduction in troops anytime soon.

There are some who believe we should leave Afghanistan as soon as possible. The president is not likely to take that approach.

But to succeed in Afghanistan, America needs more men, and sending the additional troops would be a powerful display of Obama’s commitment for the long haul. It might even pressure other NATO members to send more troops of their own.

More troops would make it easier to secure Afghanistan without being overly reliant on airstrikes and their civilian casualties. More troops could also help stop the pattern of American and NATO forces driving the Taliban out of areas only to see them return when the troops are needed elsewhere.

It is no surprise that McChrystal is calling for more troops when current forces can’t prevent insurgents from controlling much of Afghanistan’s southern area.

More troops will not be Afghanistan’s magic bullet. The surge was successful in Iraq for many reasons, including deals with former insurgents. Getting similar insurgents in Afghanistan to throw in with the central government will be hard after President Hamid Karzai’s fraudulent election.

But it is also important not to be too dreary about our prospects in Afghanistan. Most modern insurgencies have been defeated, but the key is time. That is also the key to building some sort of stable government. Afghanistan will never build up the institutions of government as there is no security to keep those institutions around for more than a few years.

Americans might not be patient enough to wait all those years, especially if casualties continue to mount.

But more troops is still the best bet if America is serious about avoiding failure in Afghanistan.


WE SAY Regardless of our goal, more troops won’t help.

Ashley Ames is a senior majoring in history and interdepartmental political science and philosophy.

The American people have neither the political will nor the resources to see political stabilization in Afghanistan.

As we stand on the cusp of raising troop levels, it is important to realize that this is a definitive moment for the Obama presidency.

Lee Hamilton, a former U.S. Representative whose district included Bloomington from 1965 to 1999, said: “It’ll determine how we direct our foreign policy resources — and domestic resources, because wars cost a lot of money. It’ll signal to the world whether [Obama] has very ambitious goals in the Middle East in terms of bringing about stability and viability of the nations there, or whether he seeks a more modest goal. And it’ll have profound consequences in the region.”

Increased commitment in Afghanistan will not help us to achieve our goals there. Indeed, the security provided by troops is only one aspect of what is needed.

Afghanistan is also in desperate need of economic development in order to foster a formal economy and tax the population. It also needs capacity building of the government and its institutions, so as to help isolate the insurgents from the general population.

Moreover, we are failing at training Afghan security forces – an incredibly difficult task but perhaps one of the most important.

About 90 percent of Afghan enlistees are illiterate and interpreters are limited. Moreover, existing infrastructure is extremely insufficient. When Hamilton came to IU last week, he pointed out at his luncheon that many difficulties have arisen from the lack of such basic social structures as school and court systems.

America is simply incapable of handling nation building for the entire country of Afghanistan – at least, with the amount of time and resources we are willing to devote to the cause.

Fifty-seven percent of Americans currently oppose the war, according to a CNN poll. As time goes on and the war siphons more domestic resources, that number will only rise. Hamilton estimated that political stability and peace in Afghanistan would take decades. The American population will not support the war for long enough to stabilize the Afghan government.

Perhaps most importantly, there is virtually no Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda, as well as the leadership of the hard-core Afghan Taliban, is in Pakistan.
For every $30 we spend in Afghanistan, we only spend one dollar in Pakistan. If our goal in the Middle East is truly to prohibit Al-Qaeda from reorganizing and disable them from completing another terrorist attack, our current strategy is working.
Fourteen of the top 20 Al-Qaeda leaders have been killed in drone attacks while the group has been unable to plan and complete the types of attacks it was regularly successful for in the 1990s. Most importantly, funding has been dwindling and they are losing political appeal.

If our true goal is to neutralize Al-Qaeda, a troop surge is unnecessary. If instead we want political stability for Afghanistan, our goal with the current resources and support available is unattainable.

Either way, sending more troops is the wrong answer.