The news of the past week has shown that President Obama does not take well to criticism. If the Fox News flare-up was not enough to suggest this, then certainly the White House’s terse response to criticism from the Associated Press of dubious stimulus-related job claims was. Thus, one is left with reasons to worry about the Obama strategy to deal with Afghanistan. Indeed, President Obama could follow the Lyndon Johnson approach to Vietnam: unsuccessfully prosecute a war on the basis of slipping personal popularity.

Thanks to recent news reports, there is some idea of what the Obama strategy for Afghanistan may entail. President Obama intens to protect the major population centers of Afghanistan with a strengthened U.S. military presence in the country. According to the New York Times, the administration is now firmly leaning towards increasing the number of American personnel in the country, and is now primarily debating by how much and in what sort of capacity.

If the President of the United States is serious about escalating the American presence in Afghanistan, then protecting the cities will not be enough. Indeed, that which makes a state viable depends not on its political system, but rather its economy. Neoconservatives often argue that it is through the implementation of democracy that peace and stability emerge. However, history suggests that economic viability is more important. The so-called “Asian Tigers” were economic successes not due to democracy, but to a general embrace of capitalism. Indeed, Taiwan (as the Republic of China) and the Republic of Korea have not long been governed democratically, but have from the 1960’s espoused values largely consistent with free market principles.

On this basis, any U.S. strategy in Afghanistan not involving a precipitous withdrawal must focus on providing security for commerce in that country. Thus, President Obama ought to embrace an Afghanistan strategy which not only seeks to protect the population centers of the country, but also its main areas of productivitiy and avenues of trade. A strategy which does not defend the major roads of Afghanistan will almost certainly render that country a failed state. Furthermore, if the trade in legitimate agricultural pursuits is controlled by the Taliban or some other force in the country, then the government in Kabul will have a much harder time establishing its legitimacy with the Afghan populace.

Though the idea of democracy in Afghanistan may now be a faint dream, there are still lessons for that country regarding attempts at democratization elsewhere in the Islamic world. Terrorist and other subversive organizations, if permitted to function as parallel governments through control or provision of education, medical services, and the marketplace, can easily garner and maintain popular support, regardless of who holds the cities. One needs to look no further than the electoral success of Hamas for an indication of this. Hamas, like the Taliban, are a threat to peace and the best values of civilization, but can also amass widespread support within their areas of relevance.

In this regard, the Vietnam War offers valuable lessons as well. The Vietcong provided an effective, parallel, pro-Hanoi governing structure in the Republic of Vietnam well into the 1960’s. This made U.S. efforts to prop up the Saigon-based legitimate government difficult. Not helping matters was the failure to establish an economy of significance in the country. Economic success, or the potential for it, serves as a means of winning over popular support, be it in Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Indeed, reforms being made in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China are bringing these authoritarian regimes into the world economy, and fostering gradual change to their antiquated political systems.

The Vietnam War demonstrated the importance of control over avenues of trade and commerce. Said war also elucidated the value of building popular support for a government, and the need for that government to exercise control over its claimed territory. Most importantly, however, the Vietnam War revealed the damage petty politicking can do to a nation, a culture, and a cause.

Lyndon Johnson prosecuted the Vietnam War in a manner designed to preserve his popularity, but in the end only served to fuel discontent and defeat. Wars should be waged to be won. This much every president owes the military everytime he deploys them. Sometimes, this includes taking unpopular steps made necessary by a recalcitrant foe.

Sadly, there is little indication that President Obama cares about anything relating to his office other than his own popularity and partisan agenda. Such sentiments have the potential to hinder U.S. military efforts abroad. How the President of the United States handles Afghanistan could well show a commitment yet unseen from this White House to be above the partisan divide, and put the interests of the country first and foremost.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• Scott Brown, Barack Obama, and the Politics of Change - January 27th, 2010
• The Massachusetts Senate Race Offers a Guide to Competing in November - January 10th, 2010
• The Massachusetts Special Election Could Define the 2010 Cycle. - January 8th, 2010
• Things learned in the debate over health care reform - December 28th, 2009
• The Only Choice for Person of the Year - December 15th, 2009