In January of 2009, there will be a new President in the White House. The elections will set the direction of the country on a number of different issues: healthcare, the economy, the war in Iraq, and immigration. However, one of the under-reported issues that will be greatly affected by the administration change is the war in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a mission that is in trouble and hopefully, the next President will take a long look at the current US commitment.

When speaking of the NATO effort in Afghanistan, everyone agrees that the troops that are over there are not enough to get the job done. Not enough for counterinsurgency, rebuilding, counter-narcotics, or basic security. A Pentagon spokesman recently revealed that if American counterinsurgency doctrine were applied to Afghanistan, there would need to be 400,000 Allied and Afghan troops in the country. The Taliban has regrouped across the border in Pakistan and opium growth is at record levels. However, a military stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot add anything to the current effort. Our allies in NATO, seeing the lack of commitment from the United States in Afghanistan, are reluctant to send their troops into harm’s way. Finally, Hamid Karzai is becoming less effective, both with the Afghani people and the NATO allies who work with him on rebuilding his country.

The choice between John McCain (the presumptive Republican nominee) and the two Democrats will have enormous ramifications for the US mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. The election of John McCain would “double down” our commitment to the Iraq conflict and make it difficult to for the United States to devote any more resources to Afghanistan. A Democrat in the White House would presumably lead to a draw down of troops in Iraq and allow for more military flexibility. While there is no guarantee that these resources would be moved to Afghanistan, it at least provides for the possibility.

While drawing down from Iraq, the mission in Afghanistan could get a much-needed boost. An increase in the American commitment would help persuade our reluctant allies to contribute their own resources. By showing we are taking Afghanistan seriously, NATO allies will be able to convince their reticent populations and militaries to follow our lead. Additionally, with increased boots on the ground, insurgents would have a harder time establishing safehavens. Perhaps an increased commitment to chasing insurgents in Afghanistan could have a beneficial spillover into Pakistan, where a new generation of Taliban is bedeviling the Pakistani military.

The 2008 Presidential election is sure to momentous for numerous reasons. But, in all the hype, do not forget that this election will be a turning point for Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, it is essential to prevent the establishment of a narco-state or separate terrorist sanctuary near the Pakistani border. It is also vital for the nature of our transatlantic alliances, specifically within NATO. Failure in Afghanistan would strike a blow against the viability of NATO in a post cold-war context. An increased American commitment would show to the world that the NATO alliance is still strong and is capable of being a beneficial problem-solver in the world.

Related posts:

1. The Cost of Dropping the Ball in Kyrgyzstan
2. Russia-NATO Missile Defense Cooperation
3. Moscow’s Annual Energy Row: ‘Kto Kogo’?
4. U.S. Standing in the World