In war, two months of soaring casualties and sagging public support can make a huge difference.
What was unthinkable in August – that fighting, or even cutting a deal with the Taliban, might be left to the government in Kabul – now seems among the options under serious consideration as U.S. President Barack Obama faces a decision that could define his presidency.
Tuesday, the President, who once called winning the war in Afghanistan “fundamental to the defence of our people,” will huddle with top congressional leaders, seeking advice on whether American “hearts and minds” can be won over to a long, bloody and uncertain counter-insurgency war halfway around the world.
Torn between hawks and doves, Mr. Obama faces what Defence Secretary Robert Gates calls the toughest decision of his presidency – whether to wage an intensive boots-on-the-ground war sending 40,000 more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan or a much more modest commitment that opens the door for an early exit from combat – the path already taken by some allies, such as Canada.
As presidential hopeful, Mr. Obama was an Afghan hawk. He even mused publicly about sending U.S. troops across the border into Pakistan to rout the Taliban and al-Qaeda from mountain hideouts. After moving into the Oval Office, he ordered 21,000 combat troops sent to Afghanistan, pushing the total of foreign forces to more than 100,000 and effectively doubling the U.S. combat punch. He fired the top U.S. general for relying too much on air strikes and replaced him with Lieutenant-General Stanley McChrystal, a veteran counter-insurgency commander committed to getting troops out into the countryside.
Less than two months ago, the President was vowing to remain for the long haul, saying the Taliban “insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight. And we won't defeat it overnight.”
Then the blunt-speaking Gen. McChrystal warned of “failure” unless tens of thousands – 40,000 is the widely-accepted figure – more U.S. troops were sent to defend Afghans in their cities and towns. He is calling for a classic counter-insurgency strategy of defending the population in a “hearts-and -minds” campaign designed to provide time for Kabul to create a civil society, an alternative economy to opium and a police force and army capable for defending the nation.
July, August and September have been the bloodiest three months for U.S. troops since former president George W. Bush ordered the Taliban ousted from power in the wake of the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
October has begun badly, with 10 more Americans killed in the first five days.
Meanwhile Americans, who backed the president's aggressive Afghanistan policy two-to-one as recently as last spring have quickly grown war-weary as the grim reality of actually battling the Taliban across vast swaths of the country becomes clear.
Recent polls show barely one-in-four wants more U.S. soldiers sent into the fray.
For Mr. Obama, Afghanistan threatens, like his struggle to enact health-care reform, to become a political quagmire, sapping his political capital and offering few good options. Pundits are starting – with alarming frequency – to make comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan, noting that the former doomed Lyndon Johnson's presidency and eclipsed his domestic achievements.
If Mr. Obama decides to back the military commanders he picked and send tens of thousands more U.S. soldiers and Marines into an open-ended counter-insurgency fight, the risks are huge. He may also need Republican support at home.
His former rival for the presidency, Republican Senator John McCain, who also championed the surge in Iraq, is among the most outspoken backers of Gen. McChrystal's call for more troops in Afghanistan. “I'd rather lose an election than a war,” Sen. McCain famously said in defending the unpopular surge in Iraq.
For Mr. Obama, the range of options is widening and the day of decision is being pushed back, apparently to give the President more time to assess what's achievable in Afghanistan without losing American support.
Already, the war objectives are being re-shaped so defeating the Taliban isn't central. Nor is shoring up the corrupt government of President Hamid Karzai.
Instead, a narrower objective – making sure al-Qaeda can't re-establish operating and training in Afghanistan – has emerged into the debate.
Gen. McChrystal characteristically, but perhaps unwisely, bluntly rejected the narrower, counter-terrorist strategy championed by Vice-President Joe Biden.
“The short answer is, ‘No,'” the general said when asked about scaling back to the Biden strategy of al-Qaeda hunting from drones.
“You have to navigate from where you are, not from where you wish to be,” he said. “A strategy that does not leave Afghanistan in a stable position is probably a short-sighted strategy.”
Mr. Obama's national security adviser, retired General James Jones, made clear how unwelcome such blunt truths were.
He also suggested, despite the raging counter-insurgency, that “Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling” to the Taliban, adding “al-Qaeda's presence is very diminished, ... the maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
So the options range from a massive increase in troops, coupled with the kind of long-term development commitment that amounts to “nation-building,” to a modest increase – perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 mostly trainers – aimed at a speeded-up effort to get the Afghan army and police sufficient capable as to provide an exit path for foreign troops.
Monday, the only option that the White House specifically excluded was an immediate pull-out.
