In late March, when President Obama announced a first wave of reinforcements for the war in Afghanistan, an Obama administration official said approvingly, " He's gone all in." Now the New York Times reports that Defense Secretary Gates and President Obama are likely soon to receive a memorandum with three options from Gen. Stan McChrystal:
"The smallest proposed reinforcement, from 10,000 to 15,000 troops, would be described as the high-risk option. A medium-risk option would involve sending about 25,000 more troops, and a low-risk option would call for sending about 45,000 troops. Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said that Mr. Gates had not made up his mind about what he would recommend to the president. Mr. Gates could be the key adviser on this decision, and some military analysts predicted that he might recommend what Pentagon officials call the "Goldilocks option" - the medium-risk one in the middle. Because he was first appointed by President George W. Bush, Mr. Gates could provide political cover for Mr. Obama should the president reject the biggest possible buildup. Mr. Gates has long been worried that a large number of American forces would alienate the Afghan population. But at a news conference with Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Gates said Thursday that his concerns about the American "footprint" had been mitigated by General McChrystal, who has indicated that the size of the force is less important than what it does. "Where foreign forces have had a large footprint and failed, in no small part it has been because the Afghans concluded they were there for their own imperial interests and not there for the interests of the Afghan people," Mr. Gates said. But he said that General McChrystal's emphasis on reducing civilian casualties and interacting more with Afghans "has given us a greater margin of error in that respect."
If these are the three options, it would seems almost self-evident that Secretary Gates should recommend and President Obama should select the lowest-risk course of action. Wars do not lend themselves to half-measures, and are not usually won on the cheap. "Goldilocks" options exist in fairy tales. Why should we accept unnecessary risk to the failure of a mission in which our soldiers are fighting and dying, and that the president has said is crucial to our national well-being? Furthermore, it's not as if selecting the lowest-risk option help free up other resources to help in Pakistan or in other theaters. No one is planning to send many US troops into Pakistan -- and winning in Afghanistan is one of the best things we can do to help the situation inf Pakistan. The central theater of war is now Afghanistan, and it would be irresponsible not to do everything we can to turn the tide decisively in our favor there.