TAKE ACTION: Let the President and your members of Congress know that you want the U.S. to negotiate a swift and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Contact your member of congress by calling the capitol switch board number (202) 224-3121 and asking for your representative by name and state

In the first months of his presidency, Barack Obama has moved toward fulfilling his campaign pledge of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. He has provided a timetable that foresees a drawdown of U.S. troop levels to 50,000 by August 2010. Those remaining "transitional" troops would leave within the next 12-month period.

That's pretty good news. Some of us in the antiwar movement might like a swifter exit, but Obama's goals are clear and the commitment seems solid. The more troubling news is that Barack Obama is fulfilling his other campaign pledge to escalate the U.S. role in Afghanistan, promising to double the U.S. contingent of the occupying NATO forces to 60,000.

It is not clear if Obama is making his decision to escalate the Afghan War out of a genuine conviction that vital US interests are served by keeping Taliban forces and Al Qaeda cave dwellers bottled up or because he is trapped by his own campaign rhetoric that framed Iraq as the bad "Bush" war and Afghanistan as the good "all American" war. In either case he is pursuing a dangerous and futile mission whose costs will dim the bright potential of his presidency without producing genuine long-term benefits.

Lyndon Johnson came to office with bold plans to build a "Great Society" that were thwarted by the divisive and tragic nightmare of the Vietnam War. Similarly, Obama has inherited a conflict with the potential to scuttle his ambitious plans to confront global climate change, overhaul our failing healthcare system, and revive our economy.

Like Vietnam, the Afghan war is unwinnable and will sap resources desperately needed at home. Throughout its history, Afghanistan has rejected invaders with great consistency. The British made multiple attempts to conquer Afghanistan in the 1800's. Failing utterly, it would be more than 100 years before another empire would attempt control. The decade-long occupation by the Soviet forces in the 1980s failed so catastrophically that it is considered among the top factors leading to the collapse of that super power.

Consider the facts: The topography of Afghanistan is so rugged and isolating that no central government has ever been able to exert genuine control over the territory or its diverse peoples. Afghanistan and the bordering areas of Pakistan (where U.S. special forces are already active) comprise a land area nearly four times the size of South Vietnam with a population 50% larger than South Vietnam had during the war.

Meanwhile, the 60,000-troop level Obama proposes is a fraction of the 500,000-troop level the U.S. committed before losing the war in Vietnam.

Despite these daunting facts, it is likely that the U.S. could maintain its occupation of Afghanistan for many years. The question we must ask is: at what cost and to what end? Since invading Afghanistan in 2001, less than 700 U.S. troops have been killed and 4,000 wounded. By historical standards these figures are low, however the tactics we have used to keep casualties down are a major factor turning the Afghan population against us.

To avoid exposure American forces have relied heavily on pilotless "Predator" remote controlled aircraft that are notorious for misidentifying and murdering civilians. United States military action is responsible for up to 90% of the more than 5,000 civilians killed during the war. Anger about these killings is so widespread that even the increasingly isolated U.S.-installed government of Hamid Karzai was compelled to condemn them. That anger has helped the Taliban recruit and regain strategic ground despite their near total military and political defeat just a few years ago.

During the Bush years the enormous bills from Iraq dwarfed the expenditures on the Afghan War. Nevertheless, the costs are far from trivial. To date we have spent some $440 billion on the war and if Barack Obama goes ahead with his plans, the cost will rise to a trillion dollars by the end of his first term.

It is hard to challenge the current bi-partisan push to expand the Afghan War. Without a trace of irony, war backers claim we must—at all cost—prevent the consolidation of radical Islamic forces in Afghanistan or risk another terrorist attack similar to September 11 (despite the fact that those very attacks were carried out by our former clients from the 1980s insurgency against the Soviets). What prevents the child of someone now being held under Guantanamo-like conditions that continue at the U.S military prison at Bagram, Afghanistan from growing up to attack us in 2025? The truth is that we can never predict nor suppress all the potential sources of terrorism.

Our genuine long-term safety best is best served not by shooting at hornet's nests or killing civilians; but rather by letting the good, marvelous, fearless and inventive side of country serve as our ambassador to the rest of the world. Better than investing precious resources in the long-term occupation of Afghanistan, we should be investing at home to stimulate the genius of our people to find sustainable, clean energy technologies that we can share with the whole world. That would be an Obama legacy worth fighting for.

TAKE ACTION: Let the President and your members of Congress know that you want the U.S. to negotiate a swift and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan.U.S. to negotiate a swift and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. Contact your member of congress by calling the capitol switch board number (202) 224-3121 and asking for your representative by name and state