They're all bad choices

President Barack Obama is having a hard time choosing what strategy to take in Afghanistan -- in part because all of the choices open to him are bad.

One option would be to just pull out. That might be the smartest thing to do, at least in terms of casualties and the drain on our nation's finances, but the Taliban and al-Qaeda already control 80 percent of the countryside (and about half the population), and it would only be a matter of months before they roared back into power. It would be perceived, both at home and internationally, as a defeat for the United States, and Americans don't like to lose. It also would cost us dearly in the prestige we need in the rest of the Middle East, and there are some parts of that world where we actually need to have significant influence.

His other option would be to pour even more troops into the country, adding to this nation's financial drain and generating more casualties. In the long run, and we're talking years of combat ahead of us in a war that's already lasted eight years, and that might -- just might -- result in something we could claim to be a victory.

But that means propping up a government that is widely seen as hopelessly corrupt, which doesn't help generate a lot of political support both in the United States and in Afghanistan. It's one of the reasons the war is increasingly being compared to Vietnam. Our dance partner has two left feet and we're the ones whose toes are getting stepped on.

Col. John Warden, one of the best military theorists in several generations, recently pointed out that the difference between our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the successful Desert Storm campaign, was essentially due to strategy.

In Desert Storm, we went in with clearly defined military goals that allowed us to control the outcome of the war. But in Iraq and Afghanistan, success has hinged on the population and leaders of the occupied countries accepting and embracing our goals, which are less military than political and something we can't control.

President Bush just never understood why people wouldn't jump up to embrace American-style democracy. It showed a lack of understanding of the realpolitik of that part of the world. Our goals and their goals are simply not the same.

We've done better in Iraq because the population there was closer to living in the 21st century than Afghanistan is. Building schools actually helped our cause. But in Afghanistan, schools are not considered a major priority. Right now, we'd be lucky if we could drag them into the 14th century, let alone the 21st. Success there would likely require changes over at least one, if not two, full generations.

So it's either pull out now, and give a victory to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or pour in a lot of troops for a long haul that is likely to last for many, many more years. Neither choice is likely to be palatable to the American public.

Afghanistan is simply an albatross around our necks. That dead bird that Bush passed on to Obama is likely to still be there long after Obama leaves office.

So Obama's strategic choices are poor. At best, he may adopt a plan that is more tactical, at least in terms of military operations that we can control, than it is strategic and involving changes in Afghani attitudes that we can't control. But as Vietnam taught us, you can win all the tactical battles in the world, but still lose the war if the strategy is flawed.

-- Kelly Everitt