The Arena – Bernard I. Finel’s response to “WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN AFGHANISTAN? HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? AND, IF YOU FAVOR MORE TROOPS, HOW WOULD YOU PAY FOR IT?” | POLITICO.com

I have been calling for a withdrawal from Afghanistan for months. And I still feel that drawing down American forces and reliance on off-shore counter-terrorism measures remains the best approach to safeguard American interests. That said, initial reports suggest that the president is going to announce a significant increase in forces. So, assuming that is the case, there are a number of issue worth discussing.

First, regardless of one’s position on the war, I think we all have to acknowledge that since September we’ve seen a productive debate on the conflict. Multiple positions have been explored at length in public and private. This is a stark contrast with earlier review efforts such as the Bruce Riedel-led review in March and McCrystal’s strategic assessment which was staffed exclusively by proponents of escalation. The lesson here is honest and open debate produces better and more thorough results than trying to game the system.

Second, selling escalation to the American people won’t be hard. The “lessons of 9/11” is still a powerful argument. The challenge for President Obama is to convey the argument with sufficient subtlety and caveats so that he retains some flexibility to change or adjust the mission if circumstances change. The big danger now is “blowback,” that is overselling the mission and creating unrealistic expectations that will bind this and future administrations.

Third, at some point, the Obama Administration is going to have to address fiscal issues in a serious fashion. An increase in the size of the Afghan mission is a long-term commitment, and it should probably include a plan to further increase the size of U.S. ground forces. I don’t think you can flatline the defense budget even as you escalate a major conflict. Interest payments on the debt are going to rise dramatically, the economy remains weak, and now we’re adding another $40 billion a year commitment to the $60 billion we’re already spending in Afghanistan. We’re a rich country with a massive economy, but at some point increasing expenditures without increasing revenues is going to create a crisis.

Finally, I hope I’m wrong, but I am pretty sure we’re going to regret this decision. On September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with box cutters attacked the United States. Eight years later, we’re increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan to 100,000 men in order to build a modern nation-state out of a poor, isolated, and conflict-ridden land. And amazingly, al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan, but rather across the border in Pakistan. The disconnect between cause and effect is massive and striking.