Tonight I will be participating in a bipartisan debate titled “The Hard Path Forward,” on whether the US military presence in Afghanistan should be increased or reduced.  The debate is the first event co-sponsored by the DC Democratic and Republican parties, and should be interesting as much for what we wonky panelists have to say, as for who turns out to listen, and how they interact with us and with each other.  I find it significant and positive that at least on a local level, Democrats and Republicans have recognized that national security and foreign policy is an appropriate subject for productive bipartisan engagement.

Here are the details:

When:  Wednesday, November 18, 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

Where:  University of the District of Columbia, David A. Clark School Of Law, 4200 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Building 39, Room 21.

Who:  Dr. Assem Akram, Professor, American University, School Of International Service; Matthew Rojansky, Executive Director, Partnership for a Secure America; Malou Innocent, the Cato Institute (standing in for Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers’ office, a PSA Congressional Fellow); Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation.

The basic question up for discussion is whether the Obama Administration should commit additional US combat forces to Afghanistan, acceding to a recommendation and request from commanding General Stanley McChrystal, that was leaked to the press in August.  I take the view that while a serious review of US strategy in Afghanistan has been much needed, it is long past time for a decision from the White House.  Each day we delay, the Afghan insurgency gains ground, and our Afghan and NATO allies lose confidence in the US commitment.

I anticipate my opponents will argue both that the war has been mishandled and that it is unjustified in the first place, from the standpoint of core US interests.  I will concede off the starting line that there are innumerable ways in which the US presence in Afghanistan has been mismanaged, and that the costs of those mistakes have been and will continue to be enormous.  That said, we must simply accept that the costs of being in Afghanistan are vast, and will continue to mount, especially if we commit more troops and civilian resources in the years ahead.  A few illustrative statistics:  Over 900 US troops have been killed since 2001, almost 400 of whom were killed by IEDs.  53 US soldiers died in Afghanistan last month alone, making it the deadliest month on record.  Deaths and injuries among Afghans have been even higher: over 10,000 Afghan troops and police, and over 7,000 Afghan civilians have died in the fighting.  US operations in Afghanistan have cost over $200 billion since 2001, and are expected to total over $50 billion a year going forward, if more troops are added and plans to expand training and equipment of Afghan forces are pursued.

Clearly, costs of this magnitude are justifiable only in the face of an urgent national security priority.  I believe Afghanistan represents such a priority.  The obvious rationale is that Al Qaeda has used Afghanistan as a base of training and operations to attack this country and kill our citizens.  That cannot be allowed to happen again.  Today, Al Qaeda is on the run, its operatives broken into isolated cells and its leadership in hiding in Pakistan’s remote mountain villages.  However, should Afghanistan once again fall under Taliban rule, Al Qaeda will quickly return and exploit it as a safe haven to plan and launch terror attacks on US interests around the globe.  Moreover, state failure in Afghanistan is dangerous for the entire region.  Should Afghanistan fall to the Taliban, or devolve into outright civil war between ethnic factions, it will be impossible for the country’s neighbors to remain uninvolved.  Pakistan is particularly threatened, since its Pashtun minority would be dragged by physical proximity, family, ethnic and economic ties into an Afghan civil war.  As near neighbors with closely linked populations, Russia and the former Soviet satellites in Central Asia would face a potential upsurge in Islamic extremism, insurgent activity, and drugs and weapons smuggling across their borders.  Iran would seek to exploit any further weakness of the Afghan central government to expand its regional hegemony, especially by funding Shia extremists.  In sum, state failure in Afghanistan would pose a clear threat to the stability of the entire Central and South Asian region, and the US must invest in preventive measures now, before others exacerbate the problem.

I support a troop boost for Afghanistan today (yesterday, in fact) not only because I agree with President Obama that this is a war we “cannot afford to lose,” but because I see in the leaked McChrystal report and other expert assessments a viable strategy for improving the situation on the ground in the near future.  As General McChrystal has argued, a new strategy for the US in Afghanistan is not primarily about more troops or resources, it is about focusing on how US assets can be used more effectively to reverse the insurgency’s momentum and build long term Afghan capacity.  Simply put, the Commanding General has offered a clear vision for combining counter-terror operations with a counter-insurgency strategy and a plan to transfer responsibility to Afghan security forces as soon as they are able.  We cannot afford not to give this strategy a chance.

To hear my complete view on the subject, and to hear how it stacks up against those of my fellow panelists, you’ll have to join us tonight.  I hope the forum will be an opportunity to prove that Democrats and Republicans can disagree about important issues without being disagreeable.  I am gratified by the wise choice of topic for this event, and I suspect that the results will be very good.

Related posts:

1. Now is the time for a national debate
2. Once more unto the Afghanistan breach, dear friends, once more
3. Speaking Honestly to the American People about Afghanistan
4. Gen. McChrystal Reports
5. Out with the old, in with the new