The Washington Post
WASHINGTON -- As President Obama nears a decision on Afghanistan, he faces a partisan divide in public opinion that is pulling him in opposite directions. His recent statements about the decision suggest he is trying to accommodate the views with a war strategy that can be successful and contained.
This is the dilemma Obama has faced when, as a candidate, he cast his lot with Afghanistan while opposing the war in Iraq. The issue that was avoidable then no longer is now, which is how to put down al-Qaida and the Taliban without being drawn into an endless conflict in a nation that has swallowed up outside forces through the centuries.
The lengthy policy debate inside the administration has spun out of control as it nears its finish, with damaging leaks and counter-leaks. White House officials insist that getting the policy right is the goal of this long process and that the president is far more worried about making the wrong decision than about being criticized for seeming to be unable to make up his mind.
The internal debate began with the bleak assessment by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, which said conditions were deteriorating and that included a request for an additional 40,000 troops to try to turn around the war. It has morphed into a much broader debate, a virtual Rubik's Cube in which Obama is weighing not just the number of troops, but when and where they would be deployed as well as how long they should be committed there and at what cost.
While in Asia last week, Obama was asked about Afghanistan in a round of television interviews. His answers suggested he is as focused on the question of how long the United States should be there as he is on the number of additional troops he may send.
In an interview with CNN, he talked about seeking an "endgame" with his new Afghanistan policy. Speaking to CBS News, he said, "There are a range of things that we know we have to do. And at this point, it's a matter of fine-tuning a strategy that we can be confident will be successful and also won't be open-ended."
Public opinion has put Obama in a box politically. Views of the president and the war are politically asymmetrical. According to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 45 percent of all Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan, and about the same percentage say they believe the war is one that was not worth fighting.
But they are not the same people. Those who disapprove of Obama's handling of the war are much more likely to be Republicans. Those who think the war is not worth fighting are far more likely to be Democrats. Those who say send more troops tend to be Republican. Those who say send fewer tend to be Democrats. Only on the question of whether the Afghan government is a reliable partner is there unanimity -- overwhelming majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents say no.
Public opinion won't decide the outcome of this debate. The real question is in what ways have Obama's views of Afghanistan -- and this country's prospects for success there -- changed during the first year of his presidency. Does he see Afghanistan as a greater potential quagmire now than he did when he was a candidate? Does he trust the military less or more in their assessments and their assurances of success? Does he believe the country can afford the cost in lives and taxpayer money of a commitment to Afghanistan that, under some scenarios, could stretch into a second decade?
