CFR Prez calls Afghanistan "War of Choice"

I've had no trouble finding journalists and academics questioning whether the war in Afghanistan is necessary from a national security perspective. Today, however, the German magazine Der Spiegel ran an interview with Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Whether you think the Council on Foreign Relations is a casual gathering of powerful policymakers, an international conspiracy, or something in between, Haass's depiction of the war was startlingly sanguine, and he's somebody who speaks with gravitas.

Indeed, even though Obama allegedly lifed the phrase "war of necessity" from him, Haass now calls Afghanistan a "war of choice." Haass calls for President Obama to challenge the assumption that what happens in Afghanistan is critical for the global effort against terrorism. His reasoning is clear:

It was a war of necessity after the attacks of 9/11 when you had a hostile government led by Taliban in Afghanistan. Now you have an essentially friendly government in Kabul and al-Qaida has re-established itself in Pakistan. So I am no longer sure what happens in Afghanistan is still essential to the war on terrorism... The choice is not between pulling out and increasing resources. We can reduce our troops' ground-combat operations but emphasize drone attacks on terrorists, the training of Afghan soldiers and police officers, and development aid and diplomacy to fracture the Taliban.

While each of his counter-suggestions come with their own problems- the civilian casualties of drone attacks, the lackluster training effort so far, and the massive scale of infrastructural needs- Haass agrees that the Obama approach leaves much to be desired:

The risk of ending our military effort in Afghanistan is that Kabul could be overrun and the government might fall. The risk of the current approach -- or one that involves dispatching 10,000 or 20,000 soldiers more -- is that it might produce the same result in the end, but at a much higher human, military and economic cost.

Haas is apparently not alone in his assessment of the war. CFR published an article soliciting the views of a number of their members, and most questioned the goals or viability of the Obama plan. Too often in this country, the media finds its narrative, and stubbornly refuses to shake it in the face of reason. There was a lot of pain in the days and weeks following 9/11. The narrative of Afghanistan as our enemy, and the Taliban as the culprits, was easy for the public to swallow. Eight years later, however, it is time to take a more sober look at what we are doing. And as long as credible spokepersons like Haass step up to the plate, our country can have that conversation. Too bad this conversation was in a German magazine.