re: #558 Mich-again

I’m trying to figure out what he is waiting for. His Commander has told him what he needs to win. We’re pushing two months since the famous “leaked” memo.

The most important debate in the Obama administration now is not whether they should follow McCrystal’s advice but rather whether Afghanistan is a war of necessity or not. I think it is delaying the decision to either support a surge and try to win or figure out the exit strategy.

He’s delaying the decision because he’s waiting on the final Afghan election results, because ultimately, that is just as big a factor as more troops, if not bigger. The way the Afghans perceive their government will determine who will win this war. If Hamid Karzai wins and corruption continues to run rampant throughout the government, our position in Afghanistan may very become untenable regardless of how many troops we send. The insurgents we are facing are not just Taliban, but ordinary Afghans disillusioned with their government and what they see as a hostile occupation force come to subjugate Afghanistan, as the Soviets and British have tried before.

As long as the people of Afghanistan perceive their government as corrupt to the core, there will be serious issues. When the democracy we have installed in Afghanistan is proven to be a total fraud, we lose legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people. If we were to immediately send in soldiers to uphold and support this corrupt, illegitimate government, the Afghan people would hate us even more. It’s wiser then to hold truly free and fair runoff elections to restore legitimacy to the government. That way, when our troops are sent in, the Afghan people will see us as support their democratically elected leader, instead of supporting some man who fraudulently usurped the office. In my opinion of course, it’s a more prudent course of action to deploy the troops after the runoff election.