President Barack Obama is facing one of the most difficult decisions he will make while in office, and it doesn’t concern health care or the economy or entitlement reform.

This issue predates his term in office, and we will still feel the lasting impacts of it long after his administration leaves the White House.

I’m referring, of course, to the war in Afghanistan.

It’s a war that was neglected heavily as the Iraq War consumed more of our nation’s attention. Whether you agree with the invasion of Iraq or not, the escalating violence in that country necessitated greater military involvement than, at that time, a comparatively smaller and quieter Afghanistan.

However, we have paid for that neglect. We initially got involved in Afghanistan in retaliation for the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The argument was that the Taliban regime had been harboring and supporting Obama Bin Laden and his terrorist group, Al Qaeda.

The initial invasion was highly successful in removing the Taliban from power and quickly striking at the organizational capabilities of Al Qaeda – even cornering Bin Laden and his lieutenants in Tora Bora, only to have them escape.

At this point, though, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated rapidly. The Taliban is reasserting its influence and control over several parts of the country, and Al Qaeda is operating in the nearby lawless mountain regions of northwestern Pakistan.

The death toll has increased dramatically, and the United States and its allies are struggling to regain control of the situation in a country that has long been known as the graveyard of empires.

It is a country that has never known centralized authority but, rather, myriad tribes and warlords.

It has little in the way of a normal economy, relying instead on the illicit poppy trade, supplying a large amount of the world’s heroin and opium.

The current “central authority” under President Hamad Karzai is inefficient, untrustworthy and corrupt.

So what do we do? Do we escalate our military presence and shift our strategy, moving from perimeter bases into the towns and villages, like we did in Iraq?

Or do we scale back our military commitment and aggressively target Al Qaeda operatives through special forces and Predator drone attacks, as we’ve been doing in Pakistan and as Vice President Joe Biden and many Democrats want?

Both options have their problems. The first course opens up the U.S. to a heavy military commitment – close to 100,000 troops – for an unknown and likely lengthy period of time. This path might help stabilize Afghanistan, but we don’t know if it will work.

The monetary costs are already strapping our budget, and, more importantly, the human cost – the soldiers killed and wounded and the families separated and grief stricken – cannot be overstated.

The second course of action will likely lead to the collapse of any basic security and stability in Afghanistan, leaving the country in a chaotic state and open to control by the Taliban – the very same organization that we initially removed from power.

Any goodwill we may have created in the country would certainly be destroyed after blowing Afghanistan to bits.

Neither option stands out as the “right way.” But it comes down to what are we willing to pay for stability in Afghanistan.

It’s a difficult choice that sits on the president’s desk right now. It’s one worthy of vigorous discussion and debate in the White House, in the Pentagon, in Afghanistan and here at the University.

Last week, the Phi Kappa literary society held a debate on the issue, and tonight Young Democrats will discuss it as a precursor to an open forum on the War on Terror on Nov. 10.

What should we do? Do we scale back? Or do we attempt to succeed where others have failed in the graveyard of empires?

- Bobby Andres is a senior political science major from Marietta and President of Young Democrats of UGA/ACC.