January 20, 2010
What’s Really Behind the Afghan Surge?
Joel Gilbert
"There is evil in the world…we were attacked…" – George Bush (2001) and Barack Obama (2009)
President Obama's recent West Point speech announcing 30,000 additional U.S. troops for Afghanistan and soon thereafter justifying armed intervention in his Oslo Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech sounded hawkish and similar to the George Bush of 2001. Why would Barack Obama repeat Bush concepts when his entire raison d’etre was “change” from George Bush? Moreover, acting like George Bush by inserting U.S. military forces abroad contradicts two important goals of the Obama presidency: 1) improvement of relations with the Islamic world, and 2) the implementation of a costly domestic agenda that includes health care reform and economic recovery. Close examination of events reveals that President Obama’s portrayal of the Afghanistan surge on principles of “fighting evil” and “self-defense” is disingenuous while his motivations are political only. Given the human sacrifice of U.S. troops, the conclusion that Obama acted out of political expediency is disheartening, but nevertheless unavoidable upon further scrutiny.
After Obama's November 2008 election and prior to his January inauguration, the Bush administration and Iraqi governments, fearful of a reversal of all gains in Iraq by Obama’s impending presidency, prevented a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces by concluding the U.S.-Iraq Troop Withdrawal Agreement on November 19, 2008. This agreement called for complete withdrawal of U.S. forces only by December 31st, 2011. Thus, Obama was blocked from implementing the policy he echoed throughout his campaign – that because the Iraq war was started under false pretenses, the U.S. must withdraw quickly to repairs its ties with Muslims and redirect war funds toward domestic priorities.
Though not able to pull out of Iraq, once in the oval office, President Obama began his new policy to improve ties with the Muslim world. He immediately moved to close the terrorist detainment center at Guantanamo Bay. Obama believed “Gitmo” served as a major complaint against America by terror groups (as though no other complaints existed that motivated them to commit acts landing them in Gitmo in the first place). In Ankara and Cairo, Obama reached out to Muslims by lauding the Islamic religion, its tolerance for minorities, and Muslim contributions to Western civilization. As an extra carrot, Obama condemned Israeli policies to enthusiastic applause. Meanwhile, on the home front, Obama doled out billions in bailouts and began his drive for health care reform.
However, Obama was left with the war in Afghanistan as a blemish on his new “soft” American foreign policy. Though in the campaign he had trumpeted the need for more forces in Afghanistan as a "just" war, it is now clear this was merely political rhetoric to placate the fears of voters that the unknown Obama was a foreign policy novice who might surrender American gains in the war on terror. Obama’s stance proved successful as he garnished support from the left who objected to the Iraq war, while placating centrist voters that he was not as radical as his detractors were alleging.
However, as 2009 rolled on, the Afghanistan elephant in the closet was emerging. For months, U.S. military brass were alerting Obama about the reality on the ground: Taliban forces were gaining territory and strength, placing U.S. forces on the defensive with mounting U.S. casualties. And, they explained, the trend must be reversed with more troops or Afghanistan and even nuclear Pakistan could be in jeopardy. More money and troops for the Middle East was not something Obama was interested in, so he simply avoided the issue. Dismayed after a year of Obama’s stalling, U.S. generals began publicly complaining about Obama's lack of decisiveness which quickly eroded Obama’s support, forcing him into a decision. Obama’s first preference to simply withdraw from Afghanistan was not possible as Obama’s advisors concluded the likely outcome would be a Taliban victory within three months of a U.S pullout. Americans would then view the Afghan war and war on terror as “lost,” sealing Obama's fate as a one-term liberal President, reminiscent of Jimmy Carter. Any future terror attacks in America, no matter how small, would be blamed on Obama's lack of backbone – so a pull out was not an option, politically. However, doing nothing was eating away at his support as the military continued to complain publicly. Thus, President Obama arrived at the “surge and leave” option. He would approve only three quarters of the requested troops, and simultaneously announce a withdrawal date that would coincide with the pullout from the Iraq theatre, just as Obama was gearing up for reelection. Obama could see himself campaigning as a foreign policy success, bringing both wars to a close, getting U.S. troops home, and saving money. Even if the American-backed governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were faring poorly, Obama could argue that he “stayed the course” as long as reasonably possible. Thus, the “surge and leave” option was chosen by President Obama as his best, and only, political option.
But what could Obama possibly say to justify a troop surge in Afghanistan? Clearly he could not explain his political motivations, his painstaking attempt to avoid the issue, nor could he say he was backed into a corner by the military and made a choice based solely on his political future. No, but he could simply dust off a few old George Bush “war on terror” lines known to resonate well with most Americans, such as "they are evil" and "they attacked us.” Done! Now, Obama is back to his domestic agenda, advancing health care reform. All troops will be home by the end of 2011 and Obama will be ready position for reelection, claiming both domestic and foreign goals were met to justify another four-year term. Disingenuous, political…
I think Gilbert is correct as to why Obama put 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan: Gilbert does not, however, esplain the substantial delay in making the "decision." I believe that the decision was forgone, and it seems obvious that it was no big deal for the administration to opt for 30,000 instead of 40,000 as a sop the left on the one hand and appealing to the middle and the right which do want more troops sent on the other. (So much for Mass AG Martha Coakley's debate claim that there were no more terrorists in Afghanistan.)
I think the reason for the delay was not because the situation in AfPak was being "seriously evaluated." I think the ostensible "review" was a ruse to buy time time in the hope that the administration could make a grand bargain with Iran that would include Afghanistan. It is the only explanation that makes sense, and it also argues how recklessly clueless this administration is. After all, it could not be more painfully obvious that they have betrayed Iran's democracy movement and are foregoing our best chance to facilitate overthrowing the biggest threat on the planet to security, igniting nuclear proliferation and facilitating radical Islamism.
Jarrow
posted by: Jarrow L. Rogovin
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 09:07 AM
There is only 1 reason for more troops in Afgan. To thin the ranks here (USA) even more.
And we know why.
posted by: Steve W
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 12:33 AM
The reason for the delay was domestic politics. I am not the first to say this. Mr. Obama needed the surge but announcing it earlier would have so angered progressives that they would have pulled their support for any health care "reform" which they were already seeing as not socialistic enough and were thus already inclined to not support.
posted by: Adam
Thursday, January 21, 2010 at 07:27 PM
