Get Opinion in your inbox -- sign up for our weekly newsletter
Opinion L.A.
Opinion Opinion L.A.

McManus: A Plan C for Afghanistan

President Obama has long been criticized by Republicans for his purportedly inadequate zeal in pursuing the war in Afghanistan. He was criticized sharply from the right for his plan to draw down troops over three years; too fast, they said.

So it's ironic that Obama now finds himself defending that timetable against GOP critics who want to pull out more quickly in the wake of news that a U.S. soldier allegedly massacred at least 16 civilians.

"We're risking the lives of young men and women in a mission that may frankly not be doable," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Sunday.

Obama's logic is that no single incident, no matter how horrific, should be the tipping point in a war we've been fighting for more than 10 years. And he has a point.

But Gingrich has a point too. Never mind how weary Americans are of this conflict; even more important, an increasing number of Afghans, including some who were once resolutely pro-American, have had enough.

That's why the United States and its allies face a genuine crisis in their effort to keep troops in Afghanistan until 2014 and beyond. Last weekend's tragic killings in Kandahar province are only a small part of the problem.

A few examples:

The chairman of the Afghan Senate, whose life has been protected by U.S. troops, said this week that his people no longer see much difference between American soldiers and the Soviet army that occupied their country in the 1980s.

A prominent Afghan American businessman, Farid Maqsudi, said he too has concluded that the Americans should leave sooner rather than later. "The point of no return has been long overdue," he told the Washington Post. That was an important statement because of who Maqsudi is: one of the founders of Kabul's American Chamber of Commerce and an ethnic Uzbek whose people have been fighting the Taliban longer than we have.

And this week, Afghanistan'smost influential council of Muslim clergymen renewed its demand that NATO troops end their search-and-capture night raids, which U.S. officials say have been a major ingredient in the military successes of the last two years.

If the night raids continue, the Ulema Council warned, the Afghan people could erupt in "a wave of anger and revenge … [and] no one will be able to control it."

That's the rub: As long as thousands of U.S. forces are in Afghanistan, ugly collisions between Afghans and Americans will happen.

Before the Kandahar killings, there were attacks by Afghans on U.S. troops to avenge the desecration of a truckload of Korans. Before that, there was a spate of sudden attacks by Afghan troops on their foreign advisors, including one inside the headquarters of the Interior Ministry. As tempers fray and patience erodes, there's no reason to expect that there won't be more.

That means the stately "glide path" out of Afghanistan that Obama and his aides designed for the next three years looks much harder to pull off now that both Afghans and Americans are calling for a faster withdrawal.

Let's remember what happened in Iraq. The U.S. had planned to maintain a strong presence there even after withdrawing most of its forces. But then last year, in a burst of nationalism, the Iraqi government abruptly decided that it wanted all U.S. troops out.

The uncertainty in Afghanistan has put Obama in a bind that he must find particularly uncomfortable in an election year. His critics on the left were never happy with the slow pace of the pullout. Now critics on the right have joined the chorus, and the president finds himself defending the extension of a long and costly war he never much liked.

Obama is right, of course, to warn against a "rush for the exits." The United States still has interests in Afghanistan, beginning with the need to prevent Al Qaeda from rebuilding.

But "stay the course" isn't an adequate response either. Both Americans and Afghans need a clearer sense of what their troops can realistically accomplish between now and 2014, and after.

Plan A — turning Afghanistan into a smoothly functioning democracy — didn't work. Plan B — handing the war over to an Afghan army with U.S. advisors, is under siege. Reassessing a major foreign policy effort in the middle of an election year won't be a welcome idea for a president seeking to project an image of calm and steady leadership. But election year or not, it's time to come up with Plan C.


Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • What's the Afghanistan endgame?

    What's the Afghanistan endgame?

    President Obama's announcement this week that he will delay the withdrawal of some 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan is an acceptable course correction. Keeping troop levels at their current strength will allow the United States to continue training Afghan forces while also helping with counter-terrorism...

  • Deserter or not, Bowe Bergdahl deserved to be rescued

    Deserter or not, Bowe Bergdahl deserved to be rescued

    When President Obama agreed last year to trade five prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held captive for five years in Afghanistan by the Taliban and its allies, some critics of the deal said Bergdahl wasn't worth it because he had left his post before being captured....

  • How the White House bungled the Bowe Bergdahl case

    How the White House bungled the Bowe Bergdahl case

    Following an extended investigation, the U.S. Army last week announced serious charges against Sgt. Robert “Bowe” Bergdahl, the soldier who was captured by the Taliban in 2009 while serving in Afghanistan, then released last May through a prisoner exchange. The Army is seeking a court-martial on...

  • New Afghan government; same old problems

    New Afghan government; same old problems

    President Obama called Kabul on Sunday to congratulate Afghan presidential contenders Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah for finally accepting a power-sharing deal to resolve a months-long dispute over who won in an election deeply marred by fraud. "Signing this political agreement," said White...

  • A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan

    A new shroud on spending in Afghanistan

    For six years, the office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, which audits U.S. spending in the war-ravaged country, has submitted quarterly public reports to Congress drawn from records provided by the U.S.-led coalition supporting the still-shaky Afghan government....

  • Undoing Afghanistan's resource curse

    Undoing Afghanistan's resource curse

    A bill in the parliament would do nothing to manage mineral wealth for the benefit of the nation instead of insurgents and warlords.

  • The Bergdahl blowback: Did he deserve to be rescued?

    The Bergdahl blowback: Did he deserve to be rescued?

    The deal that won the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was immediately criticized on several grounds: that the five Taliban detainees who were swapped for Bergdahl were too dangerous to release, that the deal granted political legitimacy to the Taliban, and that the Obama administration violated a...

  • From John Kerry: We need more visas, now, for our Afghan allies

    From John Kerry: We need more visas, now, for our Afghan allies

    The way a country winds down a war in a faraway place and stands with those who risked their own safety to help in the fight sends a message to the world that is not soon forgotten.