National Review Online asked some eminent foreign-policy experts to assess President Obama’s speech regarding U.S. policy on Afghanistan.
Jamie M. Fly After bucking political pressure from his base and sending a surge of forces to Afghanistan in December 2009, President Obama now appears to have finally succumbed to that pressure, now bolstered by some on the right who are skeptical of the prospects for success in Afghanistan. President Obama and other administration officials have justified his announced drawdown in forces by citing the gains made and the success achieved in attacking and disrupting al-Qaeda. It is true that the surge has resulted in significant gains over the last 18 months. But as General Petraeus and other military leaders have repeatedly emphasized, these gains are fragile and reversible.
Advertisement
In his effort to bring the full complement of the surge home by the end of next summer, the president is putting this progress at risk and raising the specter of a return to the under-resourced and unsuccessful strategy we followed in the years after the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001.
By coupling this preemptive drawdown with meaningless rhetoric about “nation building at home” and other coded appeals to critics on both the left and the right who are weary of war and tempted to turn their backs on Afghanistan and other international challenges, the president appears to be returning to his progressive foreign-policy roots just in time for November 2012. Despite the president’s new tone, America is still at risk and our Afghan and coalition allies continue to look to America for leadership.
Last night’s announcement should give pause to those Republicans who have been tempted to criticize the president from the left and exploit growing foreign-policy fatigue in the country. They should now think instead about making the case for renewed American leadership, because an unwillingness to lead is becoming the hallmark of the presidency of Barack Obama and one of his greatest vulnerabilities.
— Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.
John Hannah Anyone else feel like they need a shower? The stench of politics was all over this speech. From start to finish, the president’s timetable for troop withdrawal appears driven by the need to appease his liberal base and secure reelection in November 2012. It was a more or less complete dissing of the recommendation of his field commander — whose strategy is largely responsible for the progress the president claimed — as well as the rest of the country’s senior military leadership. It’s hard to find any serious analyst ready to take the bet that Obama is making, i.e., that Afghan forces will be capable in 2012 of preserving the fragile gains won by the U.S. surge, or in 2014 of securing the entire country on their own. Of course, the president’s explicit timetable worsens the odds even further, sending an unambiguous signal that America’s march to the exits has begun, irrespective of the situation on the ground. Our Afghan friends — the very forces we expect to fill the void created by our drawdown — will be badly demoralized by what they heard, while our enemies in the Taliban and al-Qaeda will be rightly buoyed, convinced that they can wait us out and achieve their long-term goal of retaking power.
Time to focus on nation building at home, indeed: echoes of George McGovern’s “Come home America.” It didn’t work then. No matter how it was gussied up, the American people knew weakness and retreat when they saw it. Will the gambit fare any better 40 years later?
A commander-in-chief who prefers to speak of “ending wars responsibly” rather than achieving victory has just taken an enormously risky gamble on a national-security issue that he himself once identified as vital to American interests. We should all pray that his luck holds out.
— John Hannah, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, was national-security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Didn't Obama make some sort of disparaging statement when Gen. Petraeus was explaining his COIN strategy about the WH framing the strategy and the military handling the tactics? How come no one can discern that WH strategy? Usually, the being president humbles a man. Not in this case.
Remember, Obama and his ilk have a real aversion to victory. With images of Hirohito coming to The U.S.S. Missouri to surrender and all that stuff Obama imagines but never happened. Victory is such an unctuous term to cowards.
The men and women of our military should never be political pawns to be expended at the behest of a corrupt and cynical politician who does not comprehend the need for a defined mission or the imperative of winning that clearly thought out and defended mission.
Agreed! We've only been there 9 years! And yet Obama - the coward! the America hater! the, ooooh I'm so angry! the toad! - "announced plans to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year. The remaining 20,000 troops from the 2009 “surge” of forces would leave by next summer, amounting to about a third of the 100,000 troops now in the country. He said the drawdown would continue “at a steady pace” until the United States handed over security to the Afghan authorities in 2014."
Too hasty! Cut and run! We'll be gone after only 12 years! Eternal war, that's what we need!
I find myself in the incredibly uncomfortable position of agreeing with this president. Granted he is doing it for political reasons but after hearing Karzai recently disparage our brave military personnel, it's time for us to move on. Some of us have experienced the spoiled ungrateful child or family member at some point and despite their behavior, we have continued our support - helping them in spite of themselves, knowing that without it, the consequences would be grave. I have personally reached the point where it is time for that child to fail!
Does "Nation building at home" mean that these troops be sent to patrol our boarders?
Afghanistan was a dicey decision in the first place. A retaliatory strike was necessary, but the execution of the War on Terror followed too closely the parameters followed in Vietnam. Was it that Iraq was a geographically easier battleground and the focus was to keep the war overseas? Were we just unwilling to draw that line in the sand and enforce that "either you are with us or you are with the terrorists?" Was this our first clear hint at just how corrupted our government, politicians, and populous had become - that we had met the enemy, and it was us; that so many in positions of power within the US would need be exposed as enemies to her if our line was not blurred?
What would the deck of cards listing America's top enemies look like? How many would be politicians to vote out of office? How many would be newsmen or organizations that influence people everyday? How many of those cards would identify internal threats?
Our troops are long overdue to return home. They
routed the Taliban years ago and have no other achievable mission.
Yes, Nation building at home would be a fine goal, but first - I'd like to see the blueprints and understand the concept of the finished work. It'd be a tragedy if we continued to build a Nation that has no moorings to The United States.
The criteria for ending a war should not be how many years we've been engaged. The question is, have we achieved our objective or failed? If Obama's conclusion is that we have failed, or that he was wrong about the objective being worth the commitment of our military in the first place, then he should say so and bring everyone home now. If he still seeks victory, then he should empower the commanders in the theater to achieve it.
The Taliban will always be able to wait us out. We are pouring money down a rat hole. These wars and debt are undermining our economy. It is long past time to close up shop and come home.
