For the past six years, people who criticized US involvement in Iraq frequently touted Afghanistan as the real central front in the “war on terrorism.” Candidate Barack Obama, an arch critic of the war in Iraq, called Afghanistan the “must win war.” Now with the war in Iraq virtually won and President Obama’s withdrawal plan announced, what to do about Afghanistan has become a pressing question for the new Obama administration. US commanders have called for more troops, and Obama has ordered the deployment of an additional 17,000. Indecision, however, is in the air. Will doubt that the war in Afghanistan is “winnable,” the world economic crisis, and war fatigue conspire to defeat a winning strategy and the will to execute it?

Former Afghanistan Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali, writing in the March 1, 2009, Washington Times, asks if we are on the verge of failing in Afghanistan, and says the country has reached “the tipping point.” He writes that, “Recently, officials both inside and outside the Obama administration have suggested that American policy in Afghanistan will be scaled back and concentrated on preventing insurgent groups from consolidating power inside the country.”

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, writing in the March 19, 2009, Washington Post oppose the “minimalist” approach and warn against repeating the mistakes made in Iraq. They call for President Obama “to reject the temptations of minimalism in Afghanistan and instead adopt a fully resourced, comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy, backed by an unambiguous American commitment to success over the long term.”

Afghanistan is not Iraq. It has no oil, nor does it occupy Iraq’s geo-strategic position in the heart of the volatile Middle East. Neither is it a nation whose sovereignty matches its territory; infamous as the “graveyard of empires,” it's a conglomeration of tribes and war lords practically ungovernable from the capital in Kabul. So why should America sacrifice its blood and treasure to win there? And how do we win in Afghanistan? What will it take?

The answer to the why question isn’t difficult. If we lose Afghanistan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and it reverts to the uncontested nest of terrorists it was before 2001, they will destabilize the entire region. The democratic government of Pakistan will be at risk. The chances a resurgent al-Qaeda, funded by Afghan drug profits, will launch an attack on the United States that could make 9/11 pale by comparison increase exponentially.

This isn’t warmed-over domino theory; it’s the reality of the threat posed by Islamic terrorists whose command central is located in the Afghan-Pakistan border region. It’s not politically correct to call it the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that’s precisely what it is. The consequences of losing it are enormous.

What’s necessary to win in Afghanistan is no mystery to US military commanders who have defeated al-Qaeda in Iraq. Are the President of the United States and the American people, however, willing to do what's necessary to win? What Americans need to know is this.

Bolstering the Pakistan government is essential. Since 9/11, it has been our ally in the "war on terrorism." Pakistan is the principal supply route for US forces in Afghanistan, and without its assistance we can’t effectively attack terrorist's redoubts in Pakistan. It's helping us track down and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders by allowing our drones to operate there. But Pakistan’s own capabilities are limited, and its struggle with India over Kashmir and sympathy for Islamic fundamentalism among the Pakistani people and its intelligence service are major complicating factors. President Asif Ali Zardari walks a razor's edge.

Then there are Pakistan's nuclear weapons, an extremely sensitive subject. Keeping them secure and out of terrorists hands is reason enough to bolster a friendly Pakistan government, despite its flaws. Political, military, and economic assistance to Pakistan should be increased.

As for US forces in Afghanistan, 17,000 additional troops are inadequate. The US commander in Afghanistan, Army General David D. McKiernan, initially called for an additional 30,000. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has expressed his concern about too many US troops, fearing Afghanis will see the US as an occupier. A valid concern; nevertheless, we can’t afford to make the mistake we made in Iraq. We must regain the momentum with a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy tailored to Afghanistan first and build up the Afghan National Army before we can begin to think about reducing US troop levels.

It’s debatable as to whether there are or aren’t any “moderate” Taliban and whether a strategy similar to the Sunni awakening in Iraq is even possible in Afghanistan. To the extent it is possible to build relationships and alliances with Afghan tribal leaders we should pursue those relationships.

The Obama administration also must make a substantial commitment of people from US civilian agencies--State, USAID, Agriculture, Justice, and Commerce. The expertise and talent they can bring to the effort are absolutely necessary. We can’t help the Afghanistan national government build and sustain the institutions and infrastructure for a government--courts, police forces, banks, social services--that will stand the test of time without them.

This can’t be an all-American show, however. Our European “allies,” like the Germans, whose troops are prohibited from combat operations, can’t be allowed to sit on the bench. Obama and the Democrats decried how George W. Bush’s “go-it-alone” mentality damaged relationships with our friends and allies. They said Obama would rebuild them. Now’s the time for the President to use what clout he has by virtue of his international popularity to persuade our friends and allies to do their part. They are not immune from the terrorist’s wrath no matter what their policy. He must convince them they can’t afford not to carry their share of the load.

Finally, as McCain and Lieberman stated in their article, “he must invest the political capital to remind Americans why this fight is necessary for our national security, speak openly and frankly to our nation about the difficult path ahead, and--most of all--explain clearly to our fellow citizens why he is confident we can prevail.”

As General McKiernan has said, the war in Afghanistan "is absolutely winnable." It’s only a matter of what political, military, and economic resources are available; how we use those resources; how well our forces are led, and what price in blood and treasure America is willing to pay to win. Despite our current economic difficulties, the US possesses the resources. We have demonstrated time and again throughout our history that we have great leaders with winning strategies, and that we are willing to pay a high price to secure our freedom and democracy for ourselves and our friends and allies.