LITTLE ROCK — As the eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan nears, with no end to the war in sight, the chorus of voices clamoring for withdrawal is rising. What used to be seen as the "good war" is now seen as a confusing conflict that shows little promise of success no matter how many U.S. and allied troops are involved and how long they stay.
Admittedly, the argument for abandoning Afghanistan is simpler and easier to articulate than the argument for staying.
We've been there too long and haven't made much progress.
The "graveyard of empires" eventually swallows all would-be conquerors.
The country is ungovernable, consisting of rugged terrain and geographic obstacles that make it impossible to pacify the countryside.
Planting the seeds of democracy in a place that is so politically backward, ethnically diverse and devoid of infrastructure would require too much time, money and precious lives.
All of these points are well taken. The corrupt government of President Hamid Karzai doesn't help. A solemn Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had to agree last week with Senator Lindsay Graham, who said that even sending a million U.S. troops to Afghanistan could not restore legitimacy to the government.
"That is a fact," Admiral Mullen replied.
So why stay?
Because denying al-Qaida and the Taliban the safety of a failed state from which to plot and launch attacks against others-and destabilize Pakistan-remains a worthwhile goal.
The Taliban and its allies are a discredited lot in most of the country. The harsh treatment of Afghans in areas they control has made them as welcome as the plague in most parts, but theycould win by default if the United States and its allies withdraw too soon. Meanwhile, a U.S. withdrawal would embolden Islamic extremists in Pakistan.
Much of our previous time in Afghanistan has been squandered. The theater of conflict was starved of resources diverted to Iraq. Eight years is a long time to fight one war, but in large measure the U.S. and NATO effort in Afghanistan has been a holding action in which the objective was never clear. Until now, it has been a policy in search of a winning strategy.
The new U.S. commander, General Stanley McChrystal, is advocating a new counterinsurgency approach that may work. It will require, however, more soldiers and more resources to show success.
The administration should commit to the most rapid possible growth of Afghanistan's national forces, but that will also require time, two or three years at least.
President Obama also needs to make clear that our objective in Afghanistan is not a Jeffersonian democracy, but a country with a government that enjoys the consent of its people and can keep the nation safe from extremist violence.
President Karzai may not be up to the job. He has been an important part of the anti-Taliban fight, but he's not indispensable, and President Obama needs to make it clear that he must clean up his act or make way for another, more credible government.
The president will undoubtedly find the strongest doubters of a policy extending the U.S. presence in Afghanistan within the left wing of his own Democratic Party. His challenge will be to convince them and other skeptics that he has the resolve and leadership skills to succeed in Afghanistan where a previous administration merely muddled through and failed to finish what it started.
Editorial, Pages 16 on 09/24/2009