The White House Debate on Afghanistan is all one sided

There's a debate raging in the White House on what to do next in Afghanistan.

The commander on the ground, General Stanley McChrystal has weighed in asking for 40,000 additional troops and has been openly politicing for the increase in the media, saying the war would be lost without it. Justifiably, the general has caught some heat for bringing his case openly to the media while the president is still weighing his options and has made no decision. This is reminiscent of General McArthur upstaging President Truman in the decision making process regarding the Korean War. Truman didn't care what the general thought of him personally, but he took exception to the general's affront to the Office of the Presidency and the Constitution which states unequivocably that it's the President who is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and not the other way around. McArthur was fired over his insubordination. It is doubtful his latest successor will suffer a similar fate, especially with Senate Republicans and Senator McCain in particular openly supporting McChrystal and his desire to escalate the war.

Obama has stated Afghanistan is a "war of necessity" and not a war of choice. Recently he said drawing down existing forces in Afghanistan is "not an option." Meanwhile V.P. Biden apparently wants no additional troops but he wants to concentrate on going after al Qaida with surgical drone attacks and special forces operations. Curiously, Obama's national security advisor, retired Marine General James Jones, citing the latest intelligence data, was quoted as saying, "The al Qaida presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies."

The point being, if al Qaida is hardly in Afghanistan,(the original justification for invading the country), what is our reason for continuing to be in the country? Is it to continue to prop up the corrupt Karsai government that has declared itself the winner in the recent rigged election with confirmed allegations of fraud? To nation build in a country that traditionally opposes and resists all foreign invaders and occupiers and now wants the U.S. and it's allies to withdraw? To continue to wage war on the Taliban who are Pashtun natives of the country (as well as in neighboring Pakistan) and are committed to fight "the infidels"( us and our allies) as long as we occupy their country?

It seems the White House "debate" is all one sided with various opinions and options, but all advocating our continued presence in one form or another. There is nobody at the debating table advocating the need to withdraw our forces and end the war!

According to the latest polls, a majority of the American people favor ending this war. There is precedent for ignoring the will of the American people when they no longer support a war. Obama, a keen student of history, needs to look no further than Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek another term in 1968 because of the unpopularity of the Viet Nam War. Viet Nam destroyed his presidency. The escalation of the war in Afghanistan, now unmistakably Obama's, will do the same to him unless he reconsiders and reverses course and ends this war.

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future