 President Obama is caught between the devil and the deep sea on the conflict in Afghanistan. There is a tug of war between his generals who are demanding more troops and an administration that is fast losing tolerance.The United States has nearly 68,000 troops in Afghanistan and there are about 40,000 from NATO and other allied countries. The top NATO and American commander in the country, General Stanley McChrystal, has warned the coalition could lose the conflict if additional military forces are not deployed.
Earlier, the US president had asked for a full review of whether US interests are better served by expanding the American military footprint in Afghanistan or by shrinking it. But he still does not seem to have made up his mind. After all, he is not like George W. Bush who was famous for shooting first and asking questions later. Barack Obama asks the right questions at the right time but is afraid to shoot.
The troops question came into sharper focus when the US ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry sent two memos to the president, questioning the basic premise of the war: whether the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai could ever reform itself enough to make success feasible?
However, it is clear that the president is not seriously considering reducing troop strength in Afghanistan; he is still considering options to send additional troops to this front. This is, however, causing serious problems for US foreign policy which seems to be giving mixed messages to both pro and anti-US elements.
Defence Secretary Robert M. Gates couched the dilemma rather appropriately when he asked" "How do we signal resolve - and at the same time signal to the Afghans and the American people that this isn't an open-ended commitment?"
The long dithering has certainly made Obama look as if he is indecisive and uncertain. If he sends a limited number of soldiers, the hardliners in his party will accuse him of ignoring the advice of his military commander, Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who has asked for 40,000 additional troops. If he sends all the troops being demanded, the doves will accuse him of ignoring the advice of Ambassador Eikenberry, who says more is not necessarily good in the present situation.
The president was dubbed as "no drama Obama" in the run-up to the presidency because he exhibited a style that had no room for internal disputes and he got everyone to fight together for a common cause. Now well ahead into his presidency, Obama has discovered that this is a different world.
Relationships are frayed between the military that proposed escalation and the civilians (Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel) who prefer restraint. The White House officials are said to be irritated by McChrystal's strategy proposal that was leaked in October as they regard it as an attempt by the military to box Obama in.
The friction between McChrystal and Eikenberry (who is also a retired general) is now in the open and has complicated things further. This was not the case in Iraq where the partnership between the military commander David H. Petraeus and civilian Ambassador Ryan Crocker streamlined the way forward. In contrast, the two top US officials on the ground in Afghanistan do not see eye to eye. There are even speculations in Washington that if push comes to shove, one of them may even have to go.
The American public wants assurance from the President that the additional troops he is committing to Afghanistan are wholly justified. His own Democratic Party also wants to make sure that he has considered every alternative before deciding to escalate military action in Afghanistan. There are reasons for Obama's reluctance. Earlier in the year, he was hoping that someone other than Karzai would be in charge in Afghanistan but the latter continues to be in the saddle. It is for this reason that the US president does not want to get stuck in Afghanistan like his country did in Vietnam.
 Military historian Eliot Cohen described the dilemma for Obama this way: "If he goes ahead with this decision, he's basically going to be a war president." This means he would have to commit more money - and more time - to managing the war. It could also mean compromising his domestic agenda which has already been hit by economic and political problems. It's no wonder he's hesitating.
But in the end, he still has to make a choice. When Obama launched this review of his strategy in Afghanistan, it was a good thing. But the longer it goes on, the more costly it becomes.
Congressional Democrats, in particular, have been openly questioning the wisdom of further reinforcements on top of the US troops already deployed in Afghanistan, with an additional 6,000 scheduled to arrive by year's end. The criticism comes as international fatalities in Afghanistan have risen to historic highs after a presidential election undermined by violence and low voter turnout.
During his presidential campaign, Obama had made it clear that he intended to reduce US forces in Iraq to focus resources on Afghanistan, despite the Democratic base's consistent opposition to doing so. He removed Gen. David D. McKiernan as the top US commander in Afghanistan in May and replaced him with Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who is expected to request as many as 25,000 additional troops.
Obama says the United States is fighting a "war of necessity" in Afghanistan. He said his strategy was to deny al-Qaeda and its affiliates safe havens in the region, protect nuclear-armed Pakistan from a Taliban insurgency and bring a measure of stability to Afghanistan.
Congressional Democrats' calls for a strategic rethinking have coincided with a downward turn in US public opinion toward the war, which marked its eighth year in October. A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that a majority of Americans do not think the war is worth fighting and that nearly one-third think the United States is "losing."
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has also reiterated his concern about the decline in US public support for the Afghan war, which he had earlier called vital. But he is all for a national debate over the conflict, saying it was better to take a "hard look" at the problem than to ignore it.
For Obama, the declining support for the Afghan effort threatens to siphon off energy and political capital at a time when he critically needs it as he pushes to reform the nation's health-care system and carry out the rest of his domestic agenda.
Obama is also facing the political challenge of having stronger support for his Afghan policy from the opposition party than from his own. For years, Afghanistan has been perceived by the moderate left as the "good war" in contrast with the Iraq effort, which Obama himself has referred to as a war of choice.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
