The political invisability of the Afghanistan war

More than a few pundits have commented, as if puzzled, by the lack of debate between the presidential campaigns on the subject of the Afghanistan war. A good example is this from the WaPo's David Ignatius, (note also the link to deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl) :

Given the dead end in Afghanistan, you might think that the war there — and strategies for ending it — would be a big topic in the U.S. presidential campaign. But sadly, soldiers and diplomats continue to operate in a political vacuum, and the candidates act as if the brutal Afghanistan conflict will somehow solve itself.

The lack of political debate over the Afghanistan war results from it being a very bi-partisan blunder.

First of all, and most importantly, the kind of political settlement now seen as the best hope for ending this unwindable and disastrous war is nothing that could not have been sought with much better prospects for success before the war even began were it not for the refusal of the Bush administration to even consider negotiation with the Taliban.

Secondly, Obama carelessly committed himself to investing more in a losing war -- almost certainly lured at the time by the prospect of political advantage.

Rage over 9/11 made the Afghanistan war politically popular initially and neither politician, Bush nor Obama, had enough statesman in himself to objectively assess the costs and benefits that could be expected from starting or escalating the war.

The future of the Afghanistan war

On this date it is being reported that President Obama is "finalizing" his plans for the promised drawdown of troops in Afghanistan.

I'll hazard some predictions:

First of all, the best decision would be to simply get out as quickly as good order permits, but it isn't going to happen. This is the easy prediction.

The withdraws will be gradual, about in line with what SecDef Gates and Gen. Petreaus can tolerate although Petreaus especially will let it be known he would prefer to put off withdraws altogether until the end of the summer fighting season, (and then review the situation again).

By this time next year the military will be reporting that the "fragile gains" have, in fact, been lost, although it was never clear what the gains were to being with.

Obama will then agree to another surge.

The truth is that there was never and could never have been enough troops to successfully execute the general's grand COIN strategy -- Afghanistan is simply too tough a situation. Obama, however, will take the blame for not sending in enough troops and keeping them there.

The hopeless Afghanistan war

The reason the Afghanistan war, nearly a decade old, stumbles on is because it is unwinable and it is all that President Obama can do to keep from losing it on his watch. He intends to push the loss onto the next administration. If it looks like he can't hold things together there for another five years he will follow Lyndon Johnson's example and decline to run for a second term. His successor will likely be a Republican who, like Richard Nixon, will withdraw from the war under cover of some face-saving claims that the US installed government is ready to fight on its own. When that proves to be untrue is when the arguments will begin in earnest over who "lost" Afghanistan.