NEW YORK, Nov. 12 (AScribe Newswire) -- Following is commentary by Jeffrey Laurenti, senior fellow and director of foreign policy programs at The Century Foundation, a New York-based public policy research institute.
- - - -
President Obama need only have looked across the Atlantic on Veterans Day to push back against national security advisors urging approval of over 30,000 more U.S. troops for Afghanistan. As Britons marked the anniversary of the armistice ending the war that was to end all wars, the bitter rejection of prime minister Gordon Brown's hand-written and phoned condolences by a slain grenadier's mother underscored the ebbing British public support for soldiering on there. That erosion, in the largest foreign troop contributor there behind the United States, signals caution for Obama as he recalibrates America's own efforts in Afghanistan.
From July to October, the share of Britons opposing the country's participation in the military operation in Afghanistan grew from 53 to 59 percent. In Canada, another country with troops fighting for the Kabul government in the south of Afghanistan, public support for Canada's military role fell in those same three months from 43 to 37 percent, with opposition rising to 56 percent. Dutch opposition to continuing the Netherlands' combat participation past 2010 has risen to 70 percent.
In the big NATO countries that have signed up for only peacekeeping and troop training, not combat against insurgents -- France, Germany, and Italy -- growing majorities call for their missions to wind down. While the governments in all these countries seem agreed, for now, that none can unilaterally abandon a multilateral mission organized by NATO and authorized by the United Nations, the clock is ticking. By the end of next year, the multiple national pressures will inevitably yield a collective NATO decision to start a phase-out. American opinion will not be far behind.
After all, the Kabul government has already had eight years to set down roots and to mobilize Afghans against a comeback by the detested Taliban.
Admittedly, most of those years were squandered by misguided policies of the Bush administration. Its ideological idees fixes -- a U.N. "light footprint," aversion to peacekeeping, fragmented reconstruction, opposition to NATO command, denial of troops, and of course obsession with Iraq -- produced what former American negotiator James Dobbins calls "dysfunctional arrangements" that hobbled Kabul and invited a Taliban resurgence. In his incisive book "Descent into Chaos," Pakistani analyst Ahmed Rashid details an "Orwellian" policy process that "created a far bigger crisis in South and Central Asia than existed before 9/11."
Discouraging as the prospects now look in Afghanistan, it is possible that a non-extremist Afghanistan may still be salvaged from the wreckage. President Obama is evidently ready to give it a chance, even if the salvage strategy requires troop reinforcements. Still, any reset strategy cannot be just military, but must require major new investments in economic and social reconstruction -- not just from the United States, but also from Europe and Japan.
Obama is rightly concerned not to slip into an open-ended conflict -- it was his opponent, not Obama, who last year endorsed a hundred years war, if needed for "victory." If Obama is going to gamble on any military surge, he should announce it as a clearly temporary reinforcement, a one-year insurance policy to cover assumption by Afghanistan's anti-Taliban majority of responsibility for their own security. With Afghans' patience already said to be turning against the eight-year foreign military presence, Obama won't have a more than a year's window. Indeed, Afghan president Hamid Karzai -- re-elected by a plurality of the vote -- would burnish his national credentials by publicly insisting on a two-year phase-out of foreign troops starting in January 2011.
Conventional military thinking abhors firm deadlines for troop withdrawal, on the grounds that the enemy will calculate that it just has to wait out the foreign troops once the foreigners have advertised their departure date. But the Taliban and their allies inside Pakistan already know that the foreigners will depart, and sooner rather than later. Even if Obama persuades the American public to give a renewed effort a chance, demands for an exit will mount well before the first Democratic presidential primary in 2012. Far better, it seems, to make a virtue of the inevitable and set the timeline as one's own initiative, at the start.
Obama's other gamble in escalating the commitment to Kabul is that the additional cost -- an estimated $50 billion more a year for war budgets already exceeding $100 billion -- does not push precarious confidence in the U.S. treasury past the tipping point. Wars notoriously cost money. The conservative critics baying loudest for rapid military escalation are also the sharpest critics of stimulus deficits. Obama should perhaps condition any increased military and economic commitment to Afghanistan on a dedicated tax increase -- perhaps on higher incomes, perhaps on gun sales -- that would be phased out as the troops come home.
Whatever increased involvement in Afghanistan that Obama will propose and that the Congress will fund, it must not be a unilateral American adventure. It needs to be calibrated to the capacity of existing allies to sustain their military contributions (almost certainly just a year or two), and it must engage the political and economic support of Afghanistan's neighbors.
That includes Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, India, and of course the deeply schizophrenic Pakistan. Whatever time Obama's strategic re-set buys for the Karzai coalition in Kabul, that time must also be devoted to building the international coalition and commitments in the wider region that strengthen the region's levees against an extremist tide.
- - - -
NOTE TO EDITORS: The above commentary is available for free and immediate use. If used, please contact Zaina Arafat at arafat@tcf.orgm 212-452-7713 or 347-751-4696, as a courtesy to the contributor.
NOTE TO EDITORS/PRODUCERS: Jeff Laurenti is available for interviews. Contact Zaina Arafat.
Media Contact: See above.
See above.
|
|
|
AScribe Newswire distributes news from nonprofit and public sector organizations. We provide direct, immediate access to mainstream national media for 600 colleges, universities, medical centers, public-policy groups and other leading nonprofit organizations.
AScribe transmits news releases directly to newsroom computer systems and desktops of major media organizations via a supremely trusted channel - The Associated Press. We also feed news to major news retrieval database services, online publications and to developers of web sites and Intranets.
And AScribe does it at a cost all organizations, large and small, can afford, a fraction of what corporate newswires charge. Click here to see how we do it