Has Obama made his first real mistake with the 30,000 troop surge?

President Barack Obama has signed off on an increase of United States soldiers to Afghanistan. In many respects his hands were tied, as it is now firmly part of the American strategy to make some obvious progress in the country.

The reality is that America, under both the Bush and Obama administrations have clearly stated that Afghanistan is the major thorn and threat to the free world.

The triple threat of al-Qaida, the growing strength (audacity?) of the Taliban and the presence of a nuclear armed and unstable government in Pakistan means that the United States yet again has to fight a different style of war.

In essence, it is a variation of the containment doctrine that the United States has followed in previous conflicts. While it is not to prevent the spread of communism as such, again the Americans are taking the security of their own country and the world into their own hands.

Some might mockingly call them the “world’s toughest cop” but again they find themselves doing the dirty work that few if any nations could or would wish to undertake.

Others believe that the United States has a point to prove after effectively losing the Iraq conflict. This though is a matter of opinion, and it is impossible realistically to quantify success in a modern war theatre. The final word on the Iraq conflict might be “well were there ever weapons of mass destruction”, but more prudently one should ask “Is the country and the world a better place for the absence of a certain Saddam Hussein”.

But while it is a vastly different conflict, there are basic comparisons with Afghanistan and Vietnam. Perhaps not with the cause or conflict itself, but in the situation that the United States again finds itself in, struggling to define an exit strategy.

These are not the simple days of World War Two when the mission parameter was essentially to defeat Germany and Japan. These are complex conflicts where the hardest part of the question is how can America confirm that the job is done (if they even know themselves what they are trying to ultimately achieve), and how do you then just up and leave.

Richard Nixon campaigned in 1968 to withdraw from Vietnam in his run to the presidency, but it took years before an effective exit strategy could begin.

The Nixon Doctrine, or Vietnamization, is essentially what America is trying to achieve on two fronts, both in Iraq and Afghanistan. But trying to prepare a country to fend for itself is almost an impossible task. Most of these areas have survived and become dependent on United States support, but the worse and possibly the most ignored lesson in all of this is Afghanistan itself.

It is a country well used to resisting occupying forces.

Throughout history the country has been conquered and subjugated by the Median and Persian Empires. Alexander the Great counted it among his territories, and the Turks and Mongols have ruled over the land.

In modern history, the USSR (nearly 30 years ago) invaded the country, and it was the Afghan Mujahideen that enabled the country to eventually set in motion the Soviets withdrawal in 1988/89.

Ironically they were funded largely by the Americans, but many believe that the United States and their allies did not adequately initiate any form of handover or help the country recover from a damaging ten year war.

As many people left Afghanistan, continuing infighting between Mujahideen and other local factions led to warlords rising and territorial battles. This was a contributing factor to the rise of the Taliban, which led to the Sunni Islamist movement eventually capturing Kabul in 1996, and years later controlled over 90% of the country.

Perhaps America feels as if they themselves spawned the Taliban.

But while al-Qaida and strengthening Pakistan is key; it is the essential removal of the Taliban that will be foremost amongst the United States objectives.

The surge – which had remarkable success in Iraq – will inflate troop numbers to nearly 100,000.

Also, which surprised many, Obama attached a deadline of withdrawal. This has been said by many, especially the Republicans, to be terrible mistake. As an Afghan sympathiser said to a high ranking American official of late “you might have all the watches, but we have all the time.”

With the deadline, the Taliban and insurgents may adopt a mere holding pattern, and patiently wait until the American withdrawal.

This is a United States machine that has as much practical war experience in the last seventy years as any fighting force seen over history. They might make mistakes time to time, but the most heavily funding military power the world has ever seen does have the resources and offensive force to beat this enemy.

But it is not a small mission.

Afghanistan is nearly a quarter of a million miles squared, with a population of nearly 30 million people. Current estimates put the Taliban forces at approximately 25,000-30,000.

As previous conflicts have shown, it is not so much about winning the war, but about putting the parameters in place to ensure that the war effort and billions of US Taxpayers dollars are not wasted if the country descends into strife months or years after American departure.

Is it a mistake on Obama’s part?

Perhaps it is, and there is no mistaking the irony that the current Nobel Prize peace winner has endorsed increased military presence and activity in the country.

But it is a no-win situation at this time. His experts on the ground demanded more troops, and few Presidents openly challenge or ignore the advice coming from the Pentagon.

The key now for Obama in making this commitment is making sure that there is a quantifiable result. That is the big difference in the United States and the Taliban.

The commander in chief has to make sure his constituents are sated, the Taliban warlords do not.

Who will blink first?