In Afghanistan, mission requires clarity

Eight years ago, when al-Qaida terrorists killed nearly 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil, it was clear that the United States needed to destroy the terror training camps in Afghanistan. It also was clear that U.S. troops had to oust the Taliban leaders who had harbored Osama bin Laden and his ruthless minions.

That clarity is absent today, or at best muddled.

Bin Laden is still on the run, perhaps in the lawless border region with Pakistan.

A fledgling democracy in Afghanistan has been undermined by its corruption, and its leaders - including President Hamid Karzai - stand accused of fraud and ballot stuffing in last month's national elections. Karzai has been incapable of cracking down on the narcotics trade that financially supports insurgents and a revived Taliban.

Meanwhile, U.S. military men and women, many serving multiple tours in a country the size of Texas, continue to fight - and die. This year has become the deadliest for American troops there since 2001, with at least 190 deaths so far.

President Barack Obama has already sent an additional 21,000 troops there, bringing the total to 68,000. Military leaders probably will request more.

But the mission in Afghanistan needs something besides men and materiel. It needs a purpose.

What is the mission eight years after terrorists attacked us? Should U.S. troops be standing between Afghanistan's dizzyingly disparate factions and clans? Can America afford to leave? If they do, will Afghanistan revert to the anarchy that permitted it to become a terrorist breeding ground?

We should resist easy solutions or glib answers, or political ones.

There's more than enough disagreement - from military commanders on the ground, to CIA veterans and counterinsurgency experts, to other strategists - about what to do next.

Making the political heat worse is the waning support of the American public. They are tiring of a commitment that is nearing the length of the Soviet Union's disastrous incursion from 1979 to 1989 to prop up a then-communist regime. That military adventure hastened the demise of the U.S.S.R.

Obama and his administration need to better enunciate the future course for America and our troops, as well as their ambitions: Is America's goal to foster a durable democracy, or is it to get bin Laden?

There are real and uncertain ramifications of staying or leaving. The presence of Western troops clearly exacerbates some existing tensions, especially when noncombatants are caught in the crossfire.

There's a line of thought that withdrawal has graver consequences than staying. Several counterterrorism experts, in interviews by The New York Times, suggest the United States cannot fight terror from a distance - through drones or proxy forces - with consistent success.

They also argue America needs to win over Afghans by making that country safe. "We tried to contain the terrorism problem in Afghanistan from a distance before 9/11," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "Look how well that worked."

The president has devoted most of his energy on other initiatives since taking the oath of office in January, particularly the slumping economy and his proposed health care reform package.

But a long-range strategy for Afghanistan requires his attention, and it requires it now. U.S. troops, the Afghan people and Americans need to know how deep and steadfast our commitment is, what we hope to accomplish, and whether it is still worth it.