President Barack Obama and General Stanley McChrystal (White House/Pete Souza)

News reports indicate that President Obama will announce a surge of 34,000 US troops in Afghanistan at the US Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, December 1st. General Stanley McChrystal, America's top general in Afghanistan requested 40,000 additional troops to quell the Taliban insurgency and stabilize conditions on the ground. Senior Defense Department officials believe the US is losing the war, the Taliban is gaining and increased troops are needed to turn the tide in the NATO forces' favor.

Premise

President Obama, who stressed in his Presidential campaign that Afghanistan was the "good war" and Iraq was the "bad war", appears committed to an increase in forces after weeks of debate and deliberation among US Cabinet and military leaders. Pierre Tristam, the Middle East Issues Guide, offers an excellent analysis of the debate entitled Escalating Debate: Should Obama Send More Troops to Afghanistan? This post focuses on the bottom line or what is the benefit to a buildup in Afghanistan.

The Bottom Line

Certainly, there will eventually be less Taliban aggression in areas where US troops are placed. The revised strategy is expected to focus on attacking Taliban strongholds in and around Kandahar and protecting the local population.

However, additional US troops will not provide greater security for Afghan citizens in other areas of the country. Taliban fighters will likely move to areas away from US troop strength and engage in battles on their own terms. A surge of 21,000 troops in March 2009 has not proven effective.

The US military considers the troop surge in Iraq a success. Senator John McCain lauded the surge during the 2008 Presidential campaign. Yet two years after the surge, General Ray Odierno, the US commander in Iraq opined that the US may not be able to declare victory in Iraq for 5-10 years, maybe ever. In Afghanistan, the US faces a more radicalized, battle-hardened enemy, which previously repelled the Soviets, in terrain less favorable than Iraq to American armored and mechanized capabilities. NATO soldiers in Afghanistan already outnumber Taliban fighters by a margin of 12-1. The odds of the US being able to declare victory in Afghanistan or leaving a relatively stable, peaceful Afghanistan in the coming years seem remote.

Outlook

It is difficult to foresee a benefit to the US buildup. General David Petraeus has stated we cannot "kill our way to victory" in Afghanistan. Assuming the US strategy continues to be focused on protecting Afghan population centers, then 34,000 or 40,000 troops are not nearly enough. The best hope for the US buildup is that it will increase NATO's capability to strike at Taliban bases in Pakistan and, if necessary because of a worst case scenario, destroy Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability.

See Also:

Escalating Debate: Should Obama Send More Troops to Afghanistan?
Results and Consequences of the 2009 Elections in Afghanistan
Afghanistan: More Troops the Answer?

Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

A post on November 9th asked if the US still cared about India because of all the attention paid toward Afghanistan and relatively little toward India.

On November 24th, President Obama met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and pledged to visit India next year. In fact, the Obama White House's first state dinner will be in honor of Singh. Hopefully, the china, food and guests will be A-list and Singh will feel properly feted.

On his four-nation November 2009 visit to Asia, President Obama met with President Hu Jintao of China and opined that the US and China were not destined to be adversaries. Obama held a town hall meeting in Shanghai and expressed his belief that the US and China can work together on issues such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

If you poll US citizens, they believe otherwise. Only 51% viewed China as a military threat in a recent CNN poll but 71% percent of Americans viewed China as an economic threat to the United States. Economist Albert Keidel of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that the Chinese economy will surpass the US's and become the world's largest in 2035. The United States' debt to China, global competition for markets and energy, influence in the developing world and the struggle for superpower status must doom the US and China to chronic conflict. Right?

Despite wars in Korea and Vietnam, years of tension over the status of Taiwan, and occasional harassment of US ships and airplanes by Chinese armed forces, there has been no significant threat of direct US-Chinese military conflict in decades.

In the economic sphere, the US and China need each other. The US needs Chinese financing, commodities at a sufficiently low price to keep inflation in check and markets for American high-value goods and services. Likewise, China does not want the US to default on its debts nor lose its biggest export market. Looking into the future, if China is to become a global power, it needs better technology, productivity and education - which the US has in vast supply.

There are more reasons for the US and China to cooperate rather than to start a new Cold War. In fact, the US is pushing for Chinese leadership in international bodies like the G-20 because it wants China to shoulder global economic responsibility befitting its economic status. Young people in China as they gain economic independence and greater exposure to Western ideas and culture should gravitate toward a more democratic and open way of thinking.

So, President Obama's appeal for cooperation and collaboration is on the right track ... Well, at least today it is.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (State Department)

Who would want Hillary Clinton's job? Broker a Middle East peace accord? Not me.

Since the Sadat-Begin Agreement of 1977, the Israelis and Palestinians, like a commitment-shy bride and groom, talk of a peaceful, happy life together but cannot seem to make it to the altar. But to her credit, like a good matchmaker, Secretary of State Clinton keeps working to bring the parties together even if they seem to have lost the desire for peace. Her predecessor, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn't seem to have the stomach for it.

Just in November 2009, Secretary Clinton and her envoy Senator George Mitchell have had to contend with the following.

• A bland meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that produced no substantive results.

• The only Palestinian official whom the Israelis will deal with, Mahmoud Abbas, announces he is quitting as President of the Palestinian Authority.

• Hamas being accused of preventing Palestinian elections in Gaza.

• A rebuke of Clinton for giving the Israelis credit for limiting the construction of new settlements in the West Bank, and subsequently pressure to state that the Israelis should cease building all settlements.

• Palestinians refusal to negotiate with the Israelis until they agree to stop building settlements.

• Israeli Government refusal to assist the UN with its ongoing probe of the Israeli incursion in Gaza in late 2008 and to recognize the findings of the Goldstone Report on the Gaza conflict.

• The Israeli military intercepted a ship carrying cargo believed to be Iranian weapons being shipped to Syria for later transport to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Combine all this with Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel, Netanyahu's lack of enthusiasm for a two-state solution, lack of consensus on the status of Jerusalem, and the thousands of years of animosity and you have a no-win situation. Despite the United States' earnest intentions, real Mideast peace still seems distant.

If Secretary Clinton manages to get an agreement within the next 3 years, then she definitely deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.