Now that a runoff is finally in the works in Afghanistan (for an election they held in August!), the Obama administration will have to make up its mind in the next several weeks on the recommendations of the McChrystal Report, which argues for sending in 40,000 or more additional soldiers. The choice comes down to whether America wants to focus on counter-terror operations—keeping troop levels constant and instead using target bombs and drones to prevent al-Qaeda from fully reconstituting—or counter insurgency, which is what we did in Iraq and involves a far greater investment in troops, time, and money but might one day result in a stable Afghan state.

As things stand, the United States spends $60 billion a year waging war in Afghanistan, and, depending on whose estimates you trust, a surge would cost between $10 and $40 billion all by itself. In 2008, there were 32,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan; now there are around 68,000. A troop surge on the scale that General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, is asking for would push us past the 100,000 mark in a war that has been going on for longer than America fought in the Civil War and World War II combined.

Leading Republicans, who represent themselves as deficit hawks when opposing Obama’s domestic initiatives, now accuse him of “dithering” on Afghanistan. This whole episode looks like it will work out extremely well for Republicans. If Obama doubles down, as they want, the best that can be hoped for is an extended and expensive struggle that will be unpopular, especially with the president’s base on the left. If he doesn’t, he, not his predecessor who waged the war so poorly for the last seven years, will be the person who “lost” Afghanistan. Unless Obama decides to get creative.

Assuming, as the smart money is betting, that Obama pursues an Afghan surge, why not propose a surtax on the wealthiest Americans to pay for it and, for that matter, to pay for the entire Afghan war from this point forward? Such a tax could be deferred a year or two until we’ve emerged more from the recession so bad economic timing wouldn’t have to be an issue. How better to send the message that (1) certain things have to be done, even though they cost money; (2) increasing the deficit in the short term is inevitable because of the Great Recession; but (3) long-term initiatives should be deficit-neutral because the deficit is a threat to our future welfare. Such a plan could be proposed in Obama’s next budget, although he could make known his intention to propose it when he announces the surge. This may have the added plus of helping to mitigate some of the inevitable disillusionment of the left when he does so.

Ballooning federal debt will be a big theme, maybe the biggest, advanced by Republicans in the midterm elections. To counter the impression Republicans are trying to create that universal health care is going to grow the deficit, Obama has wisely made this claim a tough sell by insisting that health-care reform be deficit neutral. Why not take something that Republicans currently are clamoring for, in spite of the fact that it costs a staggering amount of money, and force them to prove their fiscal-conservative bona fides? Surely, the Republicans will oppose any surtax and lose a lot of their deficit-hawk street cred in the process, while Obama, for better or worse, can be branded as “Mr. Deficit-Neutral.”

Clay A. Dumas ’10, a former Crimson associate editorial editor, is a social studies concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.