The question of which direction American policy in Afghanistan should take, and how and on what schedule that decision should be made, has nothing to do with former Vice President Dick Cheney's performance in similar situations.
But since it is Cheney who is accusing President Obama of "dithering" over Gen. Stanley McChrystal's request for more troops, it is appropriate to remind people that McChrystal's predecessor in Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan, requested 20,000 troops in May 2008. Cheney and President George W. Bush "dithered" over that request for eight months - and it was Obama who granted the general's request.
We also can't resist recalling March 2003, when UN weapons inspectors were scouring Iraq for the weapons of mass destruction the Bush administration said were in Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The inspectors, following leads given them by the Pentagon, were coming up empty and pleaded for more time. Cheney and company didn't "dither," they attacked, costing thousands of American and Iraqi lives and spending $1 trillion of the taxpayers' money that was never budgeted in pursuit of WMD that didn't exist.
But Cheney is playing to the politics of the Afghanistan decision, and domestic politics ought not to be foremost in Obama's mind as he weighs his options.
There are several good reasons why Obama has stretched out his decision-making. Since the disputed Afghanistan election, U.S. diplomats have been urging President Hamid Karzai to renounce the election fraud that gave him a majority of the votes, to accept an independent panel's recommendations throwing out disputed ballots and agree to a runoff. It is wise to hold off on sending more troops to assist the Afghan government until it is determined whether that government will have the legitimacy required for success.
Obama has also been seeking more information and vetting various options. Cheney and other Republican critics have acted like there are only two choices: all-in or all-out. But there are other options, and all should be carefully weighed. The Washington Post reported this week that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just completed a war-gaming exercise to determine the likely results from two options: sending 40,000 more troops, as Gen. McChrystal has requested, or sending 10,000 to 15,000 troops with a different strategy.
This is the kind of careful planning Americans should expect from their leaders. McChrystal did his job, informing the commander-in-chief about the resources he would need to accomplish his military strategy. But the military strategy is just one element of successful counterinsurgency. There must also be a local governing partner that can earn the confidence of the citizenry, and a development strategy that can build a future better than that promised by the insurgents.
Obama must answer three large questions: What is America's goal in Afghanistan? Can we succeed? Can we afford what it will take - in time, money, lives and focus - to deliver security and stable governance to a country that has had almost no experience with either in its history?
We are skeptical, at best, about the prospects of success for the kind of "clear, hold and build" strategy McChrystal is proposing. The last thing Obama should do is let this critical decision be hurried by the likes of Dick Cheney.
