By Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk
Scripps Howard News Service

Is it time to double-down or fold in Afghanistan? America's commander in that war, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has asked President Barack Obama for 40,000 more troops ― and is suggesting the war against the Taliban could very well be lost if he isn't allowed to pursue his strategy. Vice President Joe Biden is reportedly urging a narrower strategy that focuses more on fighting al Qaeda and less on supporting the Afghan government.

Which approach is the right one? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlueAmerica columnists, jump into the fray.

Joel Mathis

In his memo to President Obama, Gen. Stanley McChrystal suggested that even if America does everything right, it might still lose the war. Why? Because victory depends on having a stable, corruption-lite ― nobody expects corruption-free ― Afghan government that meets the needs of its people. Afghan President Hamid Karzai cannot provide that government, which means America cannot win. More troops won't change that.

There have been other signs that after eight years, Afghanistan is a quagmire. We've now been in that country about the same amount of time as the Soviet Union was during its doomed war in the 1980s. Karzai's brother ― long known to be dealing in the drugs that finance Taliban operations in that country ― was this week revealed to be on the CIA payroll. And an American Foreign Service officer resigned after concluding that the presence of U.S. and NATO troops has fueled the insurgency. We're still there because they're fighting us; they're fighting us because we're still there. It's a complete mess.

And it is a mess that was mostly achieved under President George W. Bush, who let his attention wander ― disastrously ― to Iraq. Dick Cheney's recent criticism of President Obama's ``dithering" on Afghanistan policy is thus remarkable. Having screwed it up so badly, you would think the former vice president would have the good sense and grace to simply shut up. But political bickering won't solve Afghanistan. Probably nothing can.

America originally invaded Afghanistan because al- Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11, was headquartered there. But fighting an endless war against the Taliban is not doing much, if anything, to make Americans safer from terrorism. It might be making things worse. Time to try something new.

Ben Boychuk

The conventional wisdom about Afghanistan is wrong. It has been wrong for eight years.

The question isn't whether the United States should send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan or whether President Obama is dithering over his options for a new counterinsurgency strategy. The question boils down to ends and means, not hearts and minds.

Trying to pacify the ungovernable Afghan countryside or win the support of people who are nothing if not xenophobic is a waste of time, money and precious American lives. If the goal is to secure Americans at home, we're unlikely to accomplish it on the present course.

The essential book analyzing the U.S. war on terrorism is ``No Victory, No Peace," by Boston University political scientist and international relations expert Angelo Codevilla. Codevilla argued in the Claremont Review of Books a few months after the 9/11 attacks that capturing or killing the leaders of al Qaeda or toppling the Taliban wouldn't matter much in the long run. In fact, many of the ``solutions" peddled by U.S. leaders of both parties offer only the illusion of peace.

``Fortunately, our peace, our victory does not require that the peoples of Afghanistan, the Arabian Peninsula, Palestine or indeed any other part of the world become democratic, free, or decent," Codevilla wrote in 2001. ``Neither our nor anyone else's peace has ever depended on creating 'New World Orders,' 'collective security,' or 'communities of power.'"

``Our peace and prosperity do not depend on the existence of friendly regimes in any country whatever," Codevilla continued. ``That is fortunate, because we have no power to determine 'who rules' in any other country."

Afghanistan, in short, is a sideshow and our efforts there are a massive folly. So what does ``our peace, our victory" require?

``It is necessary only that any rulers, whatever their inclinations might be, know that they and their entourages will be killed, surely and brutally, if any harm to Americans originates from within their borders," Codevilla wrote. ``Respect beats friendship."

If it's time to try something new, maybe the United States should try that.

Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis blog at http://www.infinitemonkeysblog.com and http://politics.pwblogs.com.

choisj@koreatimes.co.kr