Obama should use brain, not gut, to set war policy

In a recent column in the New York Times, David Brooks questioned President Barack Obama's ability to stick with his resolve to win in Afghanistan.

Brooks says that the war is winnable and that the only real question facing Obama is whether he has the "gut conviction" or "obstinacy that guided Lincoln and Churchill."

Brooks makes the mistake of equating the current war against the Taliban in Afghanistan with our Civil War or World War II. In reality, our situation there is more like our situation in Vietnam --although our reason for invading Afghanistan, unlike Vietnam, was completely justified. In Vietnam, we feared a domino effect: If the communists were not stopped in Vietnam, they would take over all of Southeast Asia. We were wrong, and it was wrong for President Lyndon Johnson to continue fighting that unjustified and unwinnable war.

What should we do in Afghanistan? Unlike the case of Vietnam, our invasion of Afghanistan was fully justified, but deciding when and how to get out may be equally difficult. We fear that our departure will lead to the return of the Taliban and again make Afghanistan a safe haven for terrorists like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. We must also decide what constitutes a win, whether we canwin, and what it will cost -- in lives and dollars.

I hope that Obama uses his brain -- and the brains of both military and diplomatic advisers -- more than his gut in deciding what to do in Afghanistan.

Frank Flaumenhaft

Hilton Head Island