President Obama has been of two minds toward Afghanistan since the outset of his presidency. In December 2009, en route to tripling the U.S. military presence there, he declared that U.S. military forces would begin to withdraw from that country in 18 months. Now, two-and-a-half years later, he stated that U.S. military forces would continue to leave Afghanistan but that American soldiers would remain in the country until at least 2024.
The announcement of the U.S.-Afghan "Strategic Partnership Agreement" raises at least as many questions as it answers. How many U.S. troops will remain in country after 2014 and what will be their precise role? What will be the ultimate scale of Afghan army and police forces? How much will all this cost, and what will be the U.S. share? And what is the extent of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan if, as is all too possible, this mix of Afghan and U.S. effort is not enough in the face of Taliban ruthlessness, Pakistani provision of a sanctuary for the Taliban, and Afghan corruption and divisions?
The bigger question over the president's speech is not that some U.S. forces are to stay in Afghanistan -- U.S. forces have remained in other hot spots for decades and played a useful role -- but centers on the purpose and scale of the ongoing commitment. Mr. Obama put forward two rationales. The first is that absent this effort, "al-Qaeda could establish itself once more" inside the country. This is of course true. But it could regroup in Afghanistan even with this effort. More important, it is not clear how this possibility would distinguish Afghanistan from, say, Yemen or Somalia or Nigeria. The global effort against terror is just that -- global -- and there is no reason for the effort in Afghanistan to be large. It is not the central battleground in a struggle against an enemy with access to dozens of countries.
All of which takes us to the second rationale for the announced policy: to "finish the job we started n Afghanistan and end this war responsibly." But past sacrifice is a poor justification for continued sacrifice unless it is warranted. The truth is that while the United Sates still has interests in Afghanistan, none of them, other than opposing al-Qaeda, rise to the level of vital. And this vital interest can be addressed with a modest commitment of troops and dollars.
Cross-posted from cfr.org.
-----------------------------------------------------
True when judgment is rational.
But when it is emotional, it can become the justification.
Politicians are emotional.
Statesmen are rational.
Get the F out of their faces, leave them to determine their own fates and in full control of their own resources, stop supporting Israel no matter how grotesque its own murderous policies, and there would be no requirement for even 1 boot on the ground anywhere east of Maine or West of Alaska.
Stop this insane "war on terror" before it destroys what is left of US credibility in the world - and save the war-sick soul of the American people. Withdraw now.
Setting up the pakistani border as some kind of DMZ for the taliban just seemed insane and why OBL probably picked pakistan to hide in----successfully for so long---knowing the GOP' excuse for not going after him would keep him safe--as long as conservatives held the white house.
They don't care about our debased dreams it's the humiliation of Muslims that matters.
Why do academics like Haas obstruct understanding? Truth obstructs tenure.
You are right that Haas does not point out Israel is a catalyst for action by disgruntled people in Middle-Asia. But why should he? He would get shot down as an anti-Semite. Moreover, perhaps 90% of Americans enjoy support for Israel. Ergo, nothing will ever change in America's unconditional love for "God's People."
Some ally.
It's the price of admission.
America invading a country is like a rodent invading a building. Once there, there is no desire to leave, ever.