Last chance in Afghanistan

This time, all the TV networks carried the speech. That's how important it was — the strategy so long in coming on how to win a war many consider unwinnable.

Speaking at the prestigious West Point military academy, Barack Obama said that over the next six months, America would send another 30,000 troops to join the roughly 70,000 already in Afghanistan. This was expected; it's what the generals have been asking for all year. What's new is that the additional troops will have 18 months to turn the tide, before the US starts to pack up and leave.

If Congress agrees to pay the bill, this will double the amount of money being spent each year on Afghanistan, to $100 billion. Will it be enough to change the balance of power? Or will the bad guys simply wait 18 months for the US to leave?

These same questions were asked about Iraq when George W. Bush increased troop levels there in January 2007. It turned out to be the right move, after so many mistakes. It's made it possible for Obama to, first, move the US troops out of Iraqi cities and then start removing them from the country altogether.

Will the Iraq strategy work in Afghanistan, though? The goal is the same: creating enough stability for civil society to function, and for enough local troops and police to be trained. But the two countries are very, very different. Iraq had had a functioning civil society and infrastructure before the US invaded. Iraq has also been asking the US to leave since 2005.

Hamid Karzai, reelected Afghan president this year under the most dubious of circumstances, would prefer the support of US troops. Now he has only until 2011 to take control of his country and be more than the well-dressed mayor of Kabul.

Karzai is not the only one with a deadline. By the middle of 2011, only 18 months will remain until the US presidential (and Congressional) election in November 2012. The opposition will start making a lot of noise if they think they have a better strategy.

And the United States itself has a deadline. Eight years old, the Afghan war is now the second-longest war America has ever fought. The active phase of the Vietnam War was only a few months longer. The comparison won't permit another chance after this.

Obama said the two wars were not similar, because Vietnam was fought without the US having been attacked, without international approval, and without sufficient support at home. Well, that's one way of looking at it. He didn't mention the difficult terrain or the uncertainty in telling friend from foe. Had Afghanistan been fought with conscripts, like Vietnam, protests might have ended it by now.

Osama bin Laden's in Pakistan. Al Qaeda's in Pakistan. So why are we fighting the Taliban instead? Out of spite? Because they're evil? Because we can't stand losing? Or because we broke their country and feel obliged to fix it?

"Afghanistan is not lost," Obama said, "but for several years it has moved backwards. There's no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border. "

So that's it: the Taliban could allow Al Qaeda to come back to Afghanistan if they are pushed out of Pakistan. In that case, let's hope the Pakistani troops succeed in their mission while the Americans (and NATO) are still around.