by Donald Rosenberry

Created on: December 20, 2009   Last Updated: December 21, 2009

An increase in troop strength for the war in Afghanistan is not a popular notion, but it isn't meant to please anyone. In fact, any wartime decision thrust on the war fighters in the field based solely on the political ramifications of the decision at home is suspect at best.

The Obama administration has taken considerable heat for having taken the time to carefully consider the strategy and feasibility of US armed conflict in Afghanistan.

The former Vice President has called it "dithering," and many critics say that the president has taken a lot of time to come up with the same answer former President Bush would have come to in days. This is erroneous. During the time President Obama has been considering his decision on Afghanistan, his cabinet has been busy including our allies.

His staff at the Department of Defense has had the opportunity to truly lay out a definitive purpose for action, one that includes measurable steps forward with the ability to know when progress is being made. It is simply not possible to leave the strategy to the vague and immeasurable concept of "winning the war on terror."

The idea that a war on terror can be won is of the same fallacy as making a military operation "safe." It is the definition that has been missing. Just as it is impossible to remove any possibility of injury or damage during a military operation, so it is not possible to eliminate the possibility of terrorist activity from the world. By its nature, terrorism is unstoppable, as any single individual with a grudge can foment terror through violence.

It is, therefore, a most reasoned approach for the president to gather his experts and ask the really hard questions from beginning to end. Why are we fighting in Afghanistan, who are we fighting, what do we hope to gain, and when are we done?

It is in this careful analysis that there is hope, grim as the situation is that there can be an end to this strife, but it requires something the US has rarely been able to provide-dependable, clear political and economic support for a defined military path forward.

The three arms of power for a nation state must be in harmony if its projection of power is to be effective. Going into a war with the goal of "bombing them back to the Stone Age" is a failed proposition from the start. In many cases, the very targets of the war are already living a life of bare sustenance with veritably nothing of value to destroy.

This is particularly applicable to an enemy that is not a nation

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>