Obama's big blunder

President Barack Obama will soon lay out his plans for future US involvement in Afghanistan. He is expected to announce an enhanced US role in that part of the world, including a significant troop build up, perhaps in the region of some 30-40 thousand combat troops. In other words, when all is said and done, Obama will have more than doubled the numbers of US troops in Afghanistan since becoming commander-in-chief last January.
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama oversold the Afghan war in order to shore up his national security credentials by arguing that it was the "right" war as opposed to the "dump" war in Iraq. After hammering George Bush for taking his eye off the ball on Afghanistan, Obama has little room to manoeuvre. His liberal support base is up in arms over this seemingly open-ended commitment of military resources. His conservative critics are looking for an opportunity to label him weak on national security and he does not seem eager to give them that opening. His own words are coming back to bite Obama.
So Obama is doing the safe thing: follow the generals' lead and increase troops while arguing that the end is within sight. Those of us on Obama's left tend to think that he is making a huge strategic blunder, both politically and in foreign policy terms. The transition from a conservative to a progressive administration should have provided the opportunity (excuse, if you are cynical) to radically change course by offering a more rational approach to the Afghan question, not entirely driven by the political exigencies of 911.
Such a new approach would have been based on the recognition that September 11 was largely a fluke which was enabled by the fact that America was innocent at that moment in time. No one thought it could happen here and so no steps were taken to prepare for such an assault on the country's sense of confidence in its own ability to protect its people at home. In other words, we do not believe that what happens in the Afghan desert makes Americans any safer than what happens on the streets of New York. The Israeli model would seem to bear this argument out.
This is not to say that Obama should take his eye off the ball with respect to the violent extremism represented by the Al Quaidas and Talibans of this world, but to point out that expanding this protracted war does not impress us as a judicious application of both human and material resources.
Ultimately, the United States cannot determine what kind of government Afghans have without permanently occupying that country. The question ought to be: could it be that the US can achieve more with the threat of force than with real force by making anyone in charge of Afghanistan understand that the US will not hesitate to use force if necessary?