Obama Makes the Case for a Wider War

President Barack Obama made his case Tuesday for an intensified fight in Afghanistan, arguing to war-weary Americans that a temporary build-up there is needed to set up an exit that ensures long-term security.

"Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort," Obama told a West Point audience mostly made up of uniformed cadets and generals. "It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united -- bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again."

The numerical bottom line of the speech -- the addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to reinforce the 68,000-strong American contingent already there -- came with a promised timeline: Those additional troops will deploy "at the fastest pace possible" in the first part of 2010, and "after 18 months our troops will begin to come home," the president said.

What Obama didn't say was how long that withdrawal would take. A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity earlier in the day, said the pace and timing of withdrawal would be determined by conditions on the ground.

Indeed, the few key details in the long-awaited address -- the numbers, dates, scant logistical facts -- were mostly released or leaked by the White House well before Obama took the stage at the U.S. Military Academy. And the broader strategy was little changed from the mission defined by the administration's strategic review of the Afghan war last March.

Rather, Obama sought to win over Democratic opponents of the conflict, Republican critics of his leadership and war-weary Americans with an argument he has repeatedly struck since taking office: that a new, post-Bush America, with greater international legitimacy, is refocusing on the enemy that attacked on 9/11.



"I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida," Obama said. "It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror."

The goal of the mission, he said, is to disrupt and defeat al-Qaida and its Taliban allies by breaking the Taliban's momentum, working with the Afghan government to strengthen its hold on a still-chaotic country and renewing the U.S. commitment to help Pakistan defeat its own insurgency.

"We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan," Obama said. "That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."

Yet Obama announced no significant changes to American policy for Pakistan and didn't say how the U.S. would help the Afghans overcome many of the problems that have thwarted government legitimacy there: corruption, the drug trade and economic underdevelopment. While he emphasized how much the U.S. will rely on contributions from its mostly NATO allies in Afghanistan, he didn't say how he will overcome the reluctance of those partners to send additional troops.



Republican critics homed in quickly on Obama's explicit mention of a starting date for withdrawal of mid-2011. "What I do not support, and what concerns me greatly, is the president's decision to set an arbitrary date to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. said. "A date for withdrawal sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our enemies."

Some Democrats, on the other hand, would have preferred an immediate withdrawal to the significant escalation Obama announced. "It's an expensive gamble to undertake armed nation-building on behalf of a corrupt government of questionable legitimacy," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis. "Sending more troops could further destabilize Afghanistan and, more importantly, Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state where al-Qaida is headquartered."


More From Sphere: Training Afghan Forces | Mystery Drone
Opinion: Obama Made His Problems | Different Sort of Surge
Politics Daily: Wartime Speeches | Poll Shows Big Decline
Analysis: 'Pashtun Problem' | Surge Primer | Text