Obama has officially declared a surge in Afghani troops. He has the backing of NATO and the United Nations on this as well. Will this increase lead to a long-term commitment? If it does lead to a long-tern commitment will American citizens support or express their displeasure? How is it being paid for? I believe that it is safe to say that President Obama does not wish for the troop increase to lead to a long-term commitment, but I feel like any increase guarantees a longer commitment than originally planned for. So far the plan in place is 18 months. One of the main focuses is on training the local Afghan troops. However there are those that doubt that 18 months will be sufficient enough time. U.S. ambassador Susan Rice is one that thinks that 18 months is too short; “it is not the expectation” that all required Afghan security forces “will be trained within 18 months” (CNN).
Along with commitment issues there is also the question of how is this being paid for. The new increase in troops is going to cost the United States an extra $30 billion a year. So far there is no concrete plan as to how the cost is being dealt with. Some democrats are trying to purpose a war tax to help to cover the expense. However other democrats and most of the republicans strongly oppose this idea. So it looks like the money is going to be loaned to us and added to the national deficit.
The idea of a war tax is a good idea, but bad timing. The last thing American citizens want right now, during this continuing economic downturn, is an increase in their taxes. I feel like an increase in taxes right now would lower people’s opinion of the surge. On the other hand an increase in our national deficit is not going to garner citizens support for the surge either.
