With his West Point address yesterday, President Barack Obama waded into the political and military morass that is Afghanistan, attempting to achieve a goal that has eluded every other external power: stabilization of a region critical to U.S. and global security.

In sum, Obama presented a cogent but sober strategy that offered a realistic, limited commitment rather than a blank check. His address, while decidedly understated in delivery, nonetheless outlined worthy, ambitious goals: to defeat al-Qaida and break the Taliban’s momentum, strengthen Afghan civil and military institutions and build a long-term security relationship with Pakistan.
But Obama’s true audience was not the gathering of future Army officers or even the active troops, including roughly 1,000 Hawaii-based Marines and sailors now deployed there. It was the wider American public that is largely unconvinced this mission is a worthy investment of U.S. troops and treasure.
Obama’s immediate job last night was to explain to Americans why assuming the risks of expanded U.S. involvement is still the better option than withdrawal or the status quo.
The case to be made is that there is a clear and present danger to Americans — “this is no hypothetical threat,” Obama warned — as well as dire security and human rights consequences the Taliban’s abuses bring to the Afghan people.
Substantively, he made his point that civilian outreach, as well as the military pushback against insurgents and “an effective partnership with Pakistan” formed the three critical components of success.
Toward the end of his address, he reached for an inspirational note, asserting that “our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.”
Nonetheless, it would be understandable if some of those watching the speech felt the president’s remarks struck too professorial a tone for the subject at hand. A stronger rallying cry may have better suited a renewed call to arms.
Gaining the support of the American people, not to mention Congress and members of his own party, will be a daunting test of Obama’s leadership.
Many critics of the escalation believe this is a crossroads comparable to the one at which President Johnson stood when he expanded the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. However, this comparison ignores the imminent risks that instability on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border presents in a post-9/11 world — all the more so with Pakistan as a nuclear power.
No doubt Obama’s timelines — 18 months before the troop drawdown begins — risk the possibility that al-Qaida and the Taliban will try to wait him out. Even so, Obama was careful not to lock himself in; withdrawal after July 2011 will depend on conditions on the ground.
Even so, some kind of timetable is necessary. This is a recession-era America. Even if the people supported this war, they can’t support an open-ended pledge of resources. Obama was wise to make clear that the U.S. must limit its expectations to what is militarily and economically affordable.
Stability in Afghanistan is a worthwhile goal, and — given the overwhelming consequences of 9/11 — an important part of U.S. defense strategy. But the effort in Afghanistan will cost $30 billion this year alone, as well as the commitment of our troops.
The president must report on our progress — or lack thereof — more honestly and clearly than has been done in the past.