Three questions should be asked in the wake of President Obama's speech on Afghanistan last night. What does it means for the United States' strategy there -- and in Pakistan? Does it represent a qualitative change in official American thinking about its stakes in the region and in the wider 'war on terror'? What influences shaped the approach Obama outlined?
Here is a preliminary, and sketchy, attempt to answer them. First, Washington's goals remain the same. That means a vigorous campaign against the al-Qaeda remnants on both sides of the Durand Line, an unrelenting war of attrition against the Taliban (its leadership above all), a campaign of bolstering anti-Taliban political forces to ensure that they will be minor players in the country's future, and to secure from a straying Mr. Karzai agreement to accept large American military bases for the foreseeable future. Whatever the odds on achieving these ambitious objectives may have been, they are somewhat lowered by a withdrawal schedule mildly more accelerated than General Petraeus and Secretary Gates wanted. Still, the United States will keep troops there for at least a year-and-a-half, bigger than the one it had in 2009. As for Pakistan, Obama will continue the relentless, and futile, effort to dictate to the Islamabad leadership an aggressive strategy against all hostile elements. Hence, the risk of a rupture and/or strife within Pakistan will grow.
This assessment points to an answer for the second question. Mr. Obama's worldview has not undergone any modification. For all the rhetoric, he still is devoted to creating conditions of zero threat to American security emanating from the region. Too, he has not questioned the goal of a dominant American military presence stretching from the Persian Gulf deep into Central Asia. Perhaps most important, there is no sign of a readiness to engage with other powers to design and implement a broad security system that takes into account the interests and outlook of Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia and China. None of those states will be happy about this. Mr. Obama has no strong foreign policy convictions. But such as they are, they point to following the path first staked out in 2001.
Finally, how do we explain the White House's readiness commit to a schedule of force reductions that runs against the grain of Petraeus/Gates/Panetta? We have to look at American domestic politics to understand the dynamic within the administration that led to this outcome. Obama's preoccupation is getting himself reelected. All else pales into relative insignificance. His in-house advisers, Chief of State William Daley and National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, push very hard to reinforce the President's already strong predisposition to put politics above foreign commitments and goals. The rhetoric about the need to concentrate on domestic needs was similarly inspired. As public support for leaving Afghanistan grows, and as the country's economic problems fester, it became imperative to cast Afghanistan in this light.
There is reason to believe, nonetheless, that Obama hopes to have it both ways, i.e. a politically rewarding reformulation of America's position in AfPak and a spinable measure of success in at least preventing an unraveling.
William Bradley: Obama's Big Republican Problem (It's Not What You Think)
Michael Brenner: The Kingdom -- and Washington -- at Sea
Leon T. Hadar: Barack Gorbachev: Adjusting To The Global Reality
Obama's Afghanistan speech: stuck in the middle with few
After Afghanistan Speech, A Nation Building Test For Obama
Military family reacts to Obama's Afghanistan speech
Fareed reacts to Obama's Afghanistan speech
Republican presidential candidates react to Obama's Afghan speech
On the president's Afghanistan speech – 'nation building here at home'
White House treats Obama speech from East Room as Oval Office address
step on the gas, mr obama, and pull the troops out...it is good for us, and good for your re-election.
Porter actually said that Obama is doing 80% of what Gen, Petraeus wants.
Check it out: bit.ly/iSHRYs
And though we have spent billions there under Bush and more billions under Obama for the training of police and soldiers, we will be there after 2014 with a force of 25,000--- for the stated purpose of training Afghan police and soldiers.
So long as we are there, we threaten Iran from two sides, and between Iraq and Afghanistan, have enough forces to protect oil supply routes from disruption. With these facts in mind, when really, do you think we'll leave?
We conceivably could put troops around the world in massive numbers to monitor terrorism but is that really effective? There are about 100 Al Queda in Afghanistan today. We have 1.000 troops for each one of them. Is this reasonable or even practical?
Half of the Republicans are calling the troop withdrawal a disaster, saying we need to increase our forces in Afghanistan, while the other half say we need to get out faster. Democrats are more for getting out sooner, but there are still those who think the withdrawal should be slower. The truth is, Afghanistan will never be a democratic nation. Never. The Taliban will likely rule there for a hundred years. Getting out as quickly as possible may not be ideal, but it is the thing to do. There is no good end game here anymore than there was in Iraq - but getting out is something we must do. I think Obama has it just about right.
Recent events have have proven the war against terror can be more effectively fought electronically and covertly, with a minimum of troops on the ground.
It`s highly likely Pakistan has proven it will cooperate if appropriate pressure is applied. I suspect if they hadn`t, Bin Laden would still be alive.
So... what is our purpose in Afghanistan? I mean, do we have any success or completion goals?
Remember that Nobel Prize they gave you upon entering office? Give it back.
I plan on voting for him on Election Day 2012 but - JEEZ LOUISE! - what a disappointment! The alternative is too depressing to contemplate.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
Now that that one man has been found and destroyed the subject is changing to another of the old invented enemies called al-Qaeda which numbers in the dozens .
When the popularity of the al-Qaeda gang wears out the Taliban will be moved up in popularity . There are other monetary reasons why the public is being bamboozled about these various enemies and we have yet to hear one politician tell the truth about those other reasons .
As pointed out in this article : The President is walking a chalk line to keep from being annihilated in the next election . And the people that want this mess to continue have the means to do just that .
The US system is especially gruesome due to the system of primaries that prolong the electoral process time to more than a year. In England campaign time is limited to 3 weeks.
It is time to re-think the electoral process, but the best bet would be to simply change presidential terms to a one six year term. Mexico and other countries have a one six year term that works fairly well as far as the issue of using the office and the decision making to campaign.
It also disagrees with some Republican wets. It is a geo-political lesson well worth considering.
http://robbingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/06/there-is-no-war-in-afghanistan.html