Editorial: Goals in Afghanistan

Americans commemorate the eighth anniversary of 9/11 today amid concern that U.S. military action in Afghanistan is building with an uncertain purpose.

The war in Afghanistan began eight years ago because, of course, that country harbored the terrorists who plotted the attacks on New York and Washington. The initial invasion toppled the Taliban quickly and dealt a severe blow to al-Qaeda, but failed to find Osama bin Laden.

The Bush administration soon diverted its military focus to Iraq, with costly consequences in blood, treasure, and American leadership. But the war in Afghanistan went on, out of the spotlight.

Now, President Obama is sending more troops there as our forces pull out of Iraq. As the fight escalates, the casualties and financial costs have begun to mount.

Through August, 182 U.S. troops had been killed in Afghanistan this year, the highest number of combat deaths in any year since the war began. The rising toll has led many Americans to wonder where this effort is leading, and how long it should last.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said military operations in Afghanistan could go on indefinitely. And commanders are calling for a larger troop buildup than the 6,000 envisioned by Pentagon brass. By year's end, there will be 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.) told The Inquirer Editorial Board this week that he intends to press Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta on whether our efforts in Afghanistan are "indispensable" to defeating al-Qaeda. It's a good question, and one more lawmakers should pursue sooner than later.

The fight in Afghanistan has been accepted as an article of faith. That may have been true in 2001, but things change.

Does the United States need a large ground force there to prevent more domestic terrorist attacks? Or can al-Qaeda be neutralized through beefed up intelligence, drone missile strikes and special military operations? Or has al-Qaeda moved on to other countries?

The implications for neighboring Pakistan must be at the forefront of this discussion. Many experts believe a U.S. presence in Afghanistan is crucial to preventing nuclear-equipped Pakistan from falling under the control of extremists.

The large-scale military mission is all the more conflicted by growing reports of vote fraud in the camp of President Hamid Karzai in last week's elections. The United States can't allow the Taliban to retake control, but Karzai's future would be in jeopardy if Afghans view him as a fraudulently elected puppet of the West.

Gates has said the United States cannot wage an effective counterterrorism effort at a distance. He said it requires working with local military, police, and on-the-ground intelligence. Such a coordinated effort could give enough stability to allow Afghans to rebuild their economy and local institutions without interference from the Taliban.

But eight years after 9/11, many Americans are looking forward to the day when U.S. involvement in Afghanistan will end. As the military buildup continues, President Obama needs to do a better job of explaining the mission and the goals. Specifically, how long are we going to be there, and how much will it cost?