Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is on the hot seat for suggesting the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable, and that it is a war of President Barack Obama's choosing. This is reminiscent of 2007, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was criticized for bluntly saying the war in Iraq was "lost." President George W. Bush was in office at the time.
Neither man's comment was in the nation's best interests. Both statements were political and designed to hurt the fortunes of the man, and the party, controlling the White House. But both men perhaps unwittingly focused attention on questions politicians were unwilling to confront. And in both instances, the man in the middle was Gen. David Petraeus.
In 2007, Petraeus led a troop surge in Iraq, supported by Bush. He had to endure tough questioning by skeptical Democrats in Congress, and he endured the thoughtless taunts of left-leaning interests who derisively called him "Gen. betray us."
Petraeus succeeded in Iraq, although it is questionable whether freedom and liberty can yet survive there on its own. He has a much more difficult task ahead of him in Afghanistan, where he has just been named commander, because Obama has set an August 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of troops. Even though the president made that withdrawal contingent on real progress in the region, it has been interpreted far and wide as a firm deadline. It may be exactly that, politically speaking, given the waning support at home for the war. But it is not the type of thing a general typically likes to have hanging over his head.
The larger question alluded to by Steele and Reid's political barbs concerns what, exactly, the nation's end-goal is in both Afghanistan and Iraq. What does victory look like? How will we know?
Does victory mean all insurgents have been destroyed or forced to peacefully surrender, and that freely elected governments friendly to the West are firmly in charge? In that case, victory is many years away, and a continued allied presence will struggle to quell the natural resentments that spread just by virtue of their occupation.
Does victory mean something less — a reduction in hostilities and a government sufficiently strong to keep the peace and secure its own power, for example? That may be more likely in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Even Pakistan cannot secure its own far-flung territories.
Does it mean simply that the United States and its allies will declare that enough has been done and that soldiers are going home? If so, how will the president be able to ensure Americans that terrorist forces will not have been strengthened and that the homeland is safe from attack? Or perhaps, given the nature of terrorism, would a clear victory in Afghanistan keep Americans safe?
These are questions that should be faced head-on.
Both Reid and Steele made their ill-considered remarks during times when things seemed bleak. June was the deadliest month in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001. Petraeus has the leadership skills and the military training to accomplish a lot. But even he needs clear objectives and an enemy that isn't emboldened by deadlines.