The Way Out?
On Wednesday night, President Obama announced that American troops will soon begin to withdraw, but at a size and pace unlikely to satisfy many Americans.
He said that 10,000 of the 33,000 troops from the “surge” would come home before the end of this year, with the rest out by next summer. He vowed that reductions would continue “at a steady pace” after that, and that “the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security” by sometime in 2014.
We are not military planners, so we won’t play the too big/too small numbers game. Mr. Obama argued that the United States is starting the drawdown “from a position of strength” — that Al Qaeda has been pummeled and the Taliban have suffered serious losses — and that his goals are limited. “We won’t try to make Afghanistan a perfect place.” It was a particular relief to hear him say that “the tide of war is receding” in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
But he will need to do a lot more to explain why it is in this country’s strategic interest to stick things out for another three-plus years. And why his drawdown plan has a credible chance of leaving behind an Afghanistan that won’t implode as soon as American troops are gone.
This was a sound speech, as far as it went. But 13 minutes for something this important?
Mr. Obama said that his fundamental goal is simple: “No safe haven from which Al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland.” Americans have good reason to be skeptical, especially after listening to George W. Bush’s claims that Iraq was a front line in the war on terror. It wasn’t. Afghanistan is.
Mr. Obama would have been more persuasive if he had just flatly declared that without a base in Afghanistan, the United States would never have been able to carry out the raid that got Osama bin Laden.
Mr. Obama had some tough words for Pakistan. But Americans need to hear exactly how close Pakistan is to the edge. If Afghanistan implodes, it could quickly become the base for Al Qaeda and other extremists for whom the real prize is Pakistan and its 90 or so nuclear weapons. This is no dominoes fantasy.
Does Mr. Obama have a credible plan for both building a minimally stable Afghanistan and bringing the troops home? His speech was short on specifics.
An American drawdown must be based on a buildup of capable Afghan forces. Mr. Obama’s team has made a serious effort on that front, unlike its predecessors. His argument would have been more credible if he had also acknowledged the real problems of attrition and illiteracy.
Mr. Obama said in the clearest terms yet that he is open to Afghan-led negotiations with Taliban leaders. It is an effort well worth pursuing if it is tempered with significant skepticism. Programs to bring lower-level Taliban fighters in from the cold are moving far too slowly.
Mr. Obama did not mention the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, whose behavior has been particularly bizarre and offensive of late. He also said nothing about the troubled American assistance program. A recent report by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warned that billions have been wasted on corruption and poorly conceived or unsustainable programs.
We know that “nation building” has become taboo in Washington, but helping Afghanistan build a minimally functional government is also part of the way out. Mr. Obama and his team clearly need to come up with a better way to manage Mr. Karzai, or work around him, and a more rational assistance plan.
Mr. Obama acknowledged Americans’ deep anxiety about this war. But one speech isn’t going to calm their fears. At his best, the president can be hugely persuasive. But we are constantly dismayed by his unwillingness to engage debates early and press them hard. The country needs to hear more from him, and a lot more frequently, about this war and his plans for getting out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/opinion/23thu1.html?pagewanted=print
June 22, 2011