Obama searches for another Afghan strategy

President Obama, who campaigned on the assertion that U.S. strategy had lost its way by invading Iraq in March 2003 and should have concentrated on Afghanistan instead, appears to be rethinking his commitment to Afghanistan, or at least to current U.S. policy. That policy is a fluid thing. Only weeks ago, Obama replaced the commanding general in Afghanistan with a new commander who is more attuned to counter-insurgency strategy, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Now, reports say the administration is delaying McChrystal's request for additional troops so that the entire strategy there can be reassessed.

As Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported recently, things are not going particularly well in Afghanistan. More Americans are dying. Casualties are also increasing among NATO troops. The Taliban insurgency is showing greater strength and sophistication, and last month's election made a farce of U.S. efforts to bring democracy to the splintered nation. None of this should be a surprise in a country nicknamed "the graveyard of empires." Ask the British and the Russians about how difficult it is to tame Afghanistan.

The United States had every reason to overthrow the Taliban, who had sheltered and supported the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked this country on Sept. 11, 2001. Overthrowing the Taliban was not all that difficult. The population was tired of the Taliban's ridiculous bans on any amusement or pleasure (movies and kite-flying were forbidden). The horrors of that regime are beautifully chronicled in Khaled Hosseini's "The Kite Runner" and "A Thousand Splendid Suns."

Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries on earth, has a culture that makes it nearly ungovernable. Families, tribes and ethnic groups claim more loyalty than nationality, and corruption seems to be as deeply ingrained as the militant independence of various groups. America has already concluded that it cannot rule this disparate nation by force. McChrystal is trying to win the public's loyalty by protecting civilians from harsh Taliban reprisals, but this strategy is, at best, a slow process. The Taliban have shown a remarkable resilience and surprising military strength. The Taliban control large areas of the lightly populated country, and they are able to carry out military attacks even in supposedly secure cities such as Kabul.

President Obama would like to put the Afghan problem behind him, but he and others fear that Afghanistan could easily slip back under Taliban domination and again be a staging area for al-Qaida. Neighboring Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and the worst-case scenario is al-Qaida domination of both countries with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.

America's best strategy might be some accommodation with the Taliban that would allow a theocratic government but prohibit terrorist activities or training. Right now, the Taliban have few reasons to negotiate. As Mullen has admitted, the Taliban have the upper hand.