Throughout his campaign Obama correctly (if incompletely, considering the near civil war boiling over in neighboring Pakistan) identified Afghanistan as the central front in the war on terrorism. He has echoed the demands of commanders on the ground for more troops, and the Pentagon has tentatively agreed to send as many as 30,000 more U.S. soldiers to the country. That will nearly double the number of American troops on the ground, and bring the total number of foreign soldiers, including those of NATO nations, to about 92,000. (Iraq, which is smaller in both size and population, had 162,000 troops even before the surge.)
It's a bit of a Cinderella promise. Obama won't get the troops he wants for Afghanistan until they are done cleaning house in Iraq, a line of fine print that has been largely overlooked by escalation cheerleaders. Meanwhile, the incoming administration has indicated that the increase is only a placeholder until a comprehensive new strategy can be developed for the region. (See pictures of Afghanistan.)
The Bush Administration's strategy for Afghanistan was largely defined by its absence of one. Once the Taliban were defeated, U.S. troops remained here in a mostly counterterrorism capacity that ultimately proved self-defeating. Terrorists cannot be wiped out if the factors that lead to the creation of new terrorists — indoctrination, fear, poverty and lack of education, foreign influences and sanctuaries across the border — are not also eliminated. Despite a steady increase of troops in Afghanistan from both the U.S. and NATO, the Taliban insurgency, all but defeated in 2001, has grown in strength and capacity. More of the same is not going to be enough: the year 2008 was the mostly deadly for foreign soldiers since the war began, despite the record number of troops.
