Newly elected French President François Hollande is coming to the White House next week to meet with President Obama ahead of the G8 and NATO summits. Two items are sure to be on the agenda: Hollande's call for a "New Deal" (as it were) in European economic policy that would restore growth rather than continue budget austerity, and Hollande's promise to speed up the withdrawal of French troops from Afghanistan.
Press reports suggest that Obama's agenda for the meeting will include trying to induce Hollande to renege on his pledge to withdraw French troops from Afghanistan. That would be a terrible mistake, a terrible waste of a unique opportunity for Obama to agree with Hollande on a common position for speeding up the withdrawal of all foreign forces that they can announce at the NATO summit in Chicago.
The fact is, at the level of rhetoric, Obama and Hollande already agree on ending the war, as they already agree that the European austerity policy has failed and should be replaced by a policy of restoring economic growth. A common Obama-Hollande front on ending the war and ending European austerity would be in the interest of the American 99%, the European 99%, and the Afghan 99%. (As the Obama administration has correctly pointed out, austerity in Europe hurts Americans too, because when Europe is in recession, Europeans buy fewer American goods and services.)
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Obama said the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan would free up money to help rebuild the U.S. economy: "After more than a decade of war, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home."
So, Hollande and Obama agree that U.S. and French forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan; they agree that the U.S. and France should refocus on their domestic economic problems.
But President Obama still has a policy in place that doesn't make sense in light of this agreement in principle on withdrawing troops. If we agree on bringing our troops out, why wait until 2014 or longer? As Eugene Robinson asked quite reasonably in the Washington Post, if we're going to switch to counterterrorism and training in Afghanistan in 2014, why not just make the switch now?
In addition to the Americans and Afghans who will be killed -- as the Seattle Times pointed out -- if we keep tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan until 2014, there is a real domestic economic cost to keeping our Afghanistan policy on autopilot.
Reporting on the efforts of House Republicans to cut domestic spending, including food stamps, in order to protect military spending, Bloomberg notes that the annual costs of the food stamp program, which is now serving 46 million Americans, are projected to reach $80 billion. Quelle horreur! Guess what we're already slated to spend on the Afghanistan war this year? $88.5 billion.
I ask you, my fellow Americans, which do you think is more important: making sure that 46 million Americans -- including children who have no say about anything -- have enough food to eat? Or keeping the Afghan war policy on autopilot until 2014, even though we aren't accomplishing anything there that requires keeping 88,000 U.S. troops in harm's way? We know the answer for the majority: the overwhelming majority of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, want U.S. troops to come home from Afghanistan soon, not tarry until 2014.
So let's hope that the reports that Obama is going to try to talk Hollande out of withdrawing French troops from Afghanistan turn out to be unfounded. Hollande's election is a chance to turn the page. The American people, including the majority of Republicans, are with Hollande in saying that our troops should come out. Obama can use Hollande's pledge to withdraw French troops as a lever to force the Pentagon to swallow a faster drawdown. Wouldn't it be better to withdraw all our troops faster together, than have other countries withdraw sooner, and leave U.S. troops in Afghanistan all alone?
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Andrew Bacevich: The Golden Age of Special Operations
Rev. Jesse Jackson: We Need Smarter Kids, Not More Smart Bombs
That is why Hollande is free to pull out earlier. It's not as if he's quitting before the job is done - it won't be done in 2014 any more than in 2012. He's not following the US's electoral calendar but France's.
The US is not readily going to give up territory in Afghanistan that it has fought so hard to gain.
The markets are already reacting to the possibility of a Greek default, they are less nervous about France as Hollande knows he has little room to manuver in. Six straight days of the dow declining.
A European and USA spending spree? Rates to insure government bonds would skyrocket. Those countries on the precipice of collapse would fall in short order and we would have a chain effect. Markets would collapse, your 401K with them (back in 2008 I got a notice that some accounts were frozen due to the credit crunch), and pension funds would run dry.
Anyways, we are almost there. Spending is still too high in many countries and I forsee a crash this summer or by mid 2012 at the latest.
You can make any economy look wonderful by massively increasing spending but it has a short term effect. As can be seen with the USA this is already starting to wear off. The solution of pumping even more into the system is not only ill advised but extremely dangerous. Creditors only have so much they can extend and their confidence can switch on a dime.
The income tax increases he proposes [which will never pass] wouldn't even begin to pay for his spending fantasy. He is a liar.
And the French who bought into his lies deserve the outcome of an economic slowdown.
http://api.dmcloud.net/player/pubpage/4e7343f894a6f677b10006b4/4f86ee1294739948c5000231/4ecaa97834d24d6999780ba614fc44cc?wmode=transparent&autoplay=1
-But I'm Le tired
-ok, so take a nap... But then Fire ze missiles!
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/05/08/Earth-to-Media-Its-Not-Austerity-When-Government-Spending-Keeps-Rising
Hollande will pull troops out faster because his domestic political calendar is not the same as Obama's. This war isn't about getting anything done anymore. It's about saving face.
As for WW2 specifically, French & British pacifist-inspired attempts to appease Hitler caused the war to start under much more unfavorable conditions, last way longer and claim many more victims. Plenty of research shows that in 1938 Hitler could still have been stopped with relative ease by an Allied pre-emptive attack.
All that analysis notwithstanding, the FACT of the matter is that France was at least twice unable to defend itself and had to be saved by others -- hardly an example to be followed by USA.
they always end up footing the bill for economic mistakes made by other EU members.
It hasn't been manufacturing-based for decades.
US economic growth far exceeds that of France even in the very worst of times.
The job situation in France makes our situation here seem rosy by comparison.
Not surprised that Hollande won but will be surprised if any of his plans cause economic improvement.
We can focus on becoming doctors, lawyers, dentists, computer scientists, engineers, architects, etc.
Sad comment when the Commander in Chief does not have the authority to just tell the Pentagon what will be done. This is a comment on the military/industrial/congressional complex. not on Obama.
Wasn't it Obama that settled on 30,000 troops and guaranteed withdrawl date before we could be sure we made some lasting effects!!
So therefore, Obama does have some say over what the military does.
The problem is that France would like to ease the spending cuts on troubled countries, but he would like Germany to pay for it, not France.