A new president unveiled a new surge last week, and the announcement ought to have been greeted by sustained applause by everyone who cheered President George W. Bush’s surge policy in Iraq.
President Barack Obama appears to have adopted his predecessor’s commitment to following the advice of his top generals –especially that of General David Petraeus—and the announcement of 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan on top of the 17,000 reinforcements already committed by the new administration is an important signal of American resolve in the war against Islamist jihadism.
Max Boot hit exactly the right note when he opined at Commentary Magazine’s blog “Contentions” that the new surge that Obama “unveiled at the White House today was pretty much all that supporters of the war effort could have asked for, and probably pretty similar to what a President McCain would have decided on.”
The new troops will bring the American forces to around 60,000, and the continued missile strikes on Taliban and al Qaeda leadership no matter on which side of the border they are found telegraph that even as the stability and progress in Iraq broadens and deepens, a similar emphasis on counterinsurgency will be given the time it needs to work in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Writing at the excellent Long War Journal (www.longwarjournal.org) Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio review the many impediments to peace in Afghanistan, and there is no realistic assessment of the region that doesn’t include a conclusion that stability in Afghanistan and thus security for those nations threatened by al Qaeda and its host culture of the Taliban will require years and years of sustained effort in Afghanistan.
A separate entry by Roggio notes that recently hefty prices have been offered by the U.S. for Pakistan Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud and Taliban/alQadea ally Sirajuddin Haggani and a million for al Qaeda propagandist Abu Yahya al Libi. These are the sort of incremental upping-of-the-ante tactics that announces the new administration’s strategy of victory and not retreat in the region.
So why so little coverage in the Mainstream Media or for that matter in center-right media? A nearly 100% increase in force levels in a difficult theater is a major development in the war on terror under any circumstances, but when it comes from a new president whose party includes a significant caucus of anti-war extremists and even greater numbers of activists deeply suspicious of the use of American military power, it is a hugely important development.
Obama’s embrace of the need for victory there no matter how long it takes nor how much it costs in lives and treasure does make it a war the conduct of which becomes a measure of his success as president.
Bush left him a tentative victory in Iraq but nothing close to such stability in Afghanistan, and Obama has now pledged himself to victory there. When he seeks re-election in 2012, the progress that has been achieved in Afghanistan will be a significant factor in his claim on a second term.
Which is perhaps why ideological media –and all media these days are increasingly recognized as ideological media—is so tentative in its discussion of the president’s declaration.
The hawks must realize that if Obama delivers on security and stability in Afghanistan, the case for change in the White House will be significantly weakened. The doves must realize that their own standard bearer has repudiated their most cherished tropes about the war and how it must be waged, if at all.
Afghanistan is part of a global war on terror that many on the left deny is a war in any meaningful sense of the word. 60,000 troops in harm’s way, and billions more in aid to both Pakistan and Afghanistan certify the long war as real and the threat from Islamist extremism as clear and present.
And of course Obama’s embrace of the need for victory endangers the left’s deep hatred of Bush. If four years from now the war is still tough going, Osama bin Laden is still at large, Pakistan is still unstable, and the need for continuing commitment still obvious, it will be hard indeed for the left to continue its war on the first president who saw what needed to be done despite its difficulty, unless it adds a second president to its list of alleged fear mongering imperialists.
Examiner columnist Hugh Hewitt is a law professor at Chapman University Law School and a nationally syndicated radio talk show host who blogs daily at HughHewitt.com.
