• News
• Sports
• Opinion
• A&E
• Multimedia
• Features
• Obituaries
• Blogs

  Home Page » Opinion » Editorial » Cheney And War

Cheney and war

Explanations should accompany his criticism

Former Vice President Dick Cheney does not pussyfoot around in his criticism of President Barack Obama’s handling of Afghanistan. Nor should he. It is a life-and-death issue for U.S. troops, the Afghan people and, given the events of Sept. 11, 2001, possibly for this nation.

But for precisely those reasons, Cheney owes the country more than simply saying Obama is wrong. What is lacking in the former vice president’s critique is an explanation of what would be right. That matters because of its intrinsic importance, and because it is central to Cheney’s argument.

Speaking Wednesday at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, Cheney said the president had not given the troops a clear mission and seems “afraid to make a decision.”

“The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said. “Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

Fair enough. While hardly poetic, George W. Bush was correct in saying the president is “the decider.” And while Cheney was unclear as to how or why Obama should accomplish it, he was clear about what his goal should be.

“It’s time,” Cheney said, “for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

But Cheney’s straightforward style does not hide his confusion. The assumptions implicit in his remarks demand explanation, and without that his speech is little more than name-calling.

With whom are we at “war” in Afghanistan? The United States invaded that country to destroy al-Qaida after that organization orchestrated the attacks on New York and Washington. As Obama and Cheney seem to agree, that had to be done.

And, it would seem it has been. National Security Advisor James Jones said earlier this month that the maximum estimate shows fewer than 100 al-Qaida fighters left in Afghanistan.

So who are our adversaries? And why?

It is not enough to say “militants” or “terrorists.” Even when organized those are rarely war-fighting forces, and they are hardly unique to Afghanistan.

Al-Qaida had been given sanctuary by the Taliban government, which meant U.S. forces had to topple that regime. But Jones says he does not foresee the return of the Taliban to power, and in any case al-Qaida is effectively spent. Are U.S. forces fighting the Taliban just because both are there, or is eliminating the Taliban the new objective – and if so, why?

What would it mean to “win” there? Who would surrender? Would “victory” amount to building a nation where there has never been one in the sense we use the word? That could take decades, cost trillions and may not be possible.

Or would Cheney expand the conflict? All observers say the largest numbers of al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in the area are probably in Pakistan, and U.S. forces are already striking at them with drones. Should we send ground troops, too?

If Obama is “afraid” to make that call, good for him. It is a terrifying prospect.

Most of the decisions that must or may be made about Afghanistan are daunting. And deliberation in the face of that is not dithering. It is worth taking time to decide what we are doing before too many more Americans are killed doing it.