By Will Inboden
President Obama deserves our support for
his wise and courageous decision
on America's Afghanistan policy.
Embracing the counterinsurgency strategy recommended by Generals
McChrystal and Petraeus and its corresponding substantial military force
increase of 30,000 troops was a laudable act of principle, especially
considering the tepid support among the general American public and the
outright opposition
of most Democrats. As Peter
Feaver and many others have observed, Obama's speech itself was
rather anemic and an inartful reminder of the political calculations and
ambivalence which color his national security policy as he continues to grapple
with embracing his role as a wartime president. But when it came to the hard crucible of making the decision, in this
vital case he did the right thing.
There are many others who can comment on the
details of the new policy and what it might mean for Afghanistan. But almost as important is how the rest of
the world will perceive the new policy. In
a column
last week, Roger Cohen cited an observation by Henry Kissinger that "[Obama] reminds me of a chess
grandmaster who has played his opening in six simultaneous games. But he hasn't
completed a single game and I'd like to see him finish one."
While the Afghanistan board is far from
complete, in this case the President has made an audacious new move. To pick up on the Kissinger chessboard
analogy (and to invoke a favorite geopolitical theme of Kissinger's), the six
games are not being played separately but rather are all linked to each
other. A move on one board often will
carry significant ramifications for the state of play on the other boards, and
will send important signals to the opposing players on each board.
So what are the messages that Obama's speech sends to other important parts of the world, including ones
where he has taken new steps?
To the nations of western Europe, the new
policy shows a willingness to try to lead public opinion (and not just follow
it) for a mission vital to national security, and to make a substantial troop
deployment committed to taking the fight to the enemy. In light of the unwillingness thus far of
many NATO members to increase their force deployments in Afghanistan, and the
reluctance of some to even let their troops engage in combat, this is
significant. Since European public
opinion still remains largely opposed to the war in Afghanistan but the new
strategy calls for another 5,000 NATO troops, President Obama might want to
consider deploying his own considerable popularity by making a similar speech
in Europe urging more force contributions from NATO members. Perhaps when he travels to Oslo next week to
accept his Nobel Peace Prize?
To China, where in the wake of Obama's
recent trip the government in Beijing may be questioning his general resolve,
the new policy demonstrates an ability to make hard choices that risk his
reputation and carry real costs. It also
reinforces for Beijing that south and central Asia remain regions of profound
strategic interest to the United States. These will be helpful reminders for China as
the Obama Administration continues to press it to play a constructive role on
other priority issues such as the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs.
To Iran, where the Obama administration
faces an acute challenge on the nuclear program, the policy demonstrates a
willingness to use force if necessary to protect America's security interests. Ironically,
it is sometimes just this type of willingness that strengthens diplomatic
efforts and renders the use of force itself unnecessary.
To India (from where I write this week),
the policy displays a renewed commitment to an American presence in a troubled
region, and to finishing hard tasks. But
as numerous Indian policy leaders privately said today, the announced date of
July 2011 to begin troop withdrawals undercuts this message and renews fears of
American fickleness, of the type that led to American disengagement from
Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1990s, with disastrous results. David
Ignatius today called this "the weak link in an otherwise admirable
decision -- the idea that we strengthen our hand by announcing in advance that
we plan to fold it."
To Pakistan, the new policy will hopefully
signal to government and citizens alike that the United States is committed to
defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda and to the sustained promotion of stable,
secure, and free self-government in the region. This should give Pakistanis the additional assurance and incentives they
need to make the right choices to side against jihadism and with efforts for
reform, development, and responsible governance. Though again, in Pakistani minds these
incentives might be mitigated by fears of the July 2011 drawdown date and
yet another case of U.S. abandonment.
The hardest days in Afghanistan lie ahead,
and the Obama administration will face grave challenges and choices in many other
areas, some known and others unknown. But at this point at least, Obama has decided on a policy that is best
for American security interests not only in Afghanistan but in other places
around the globe.
Roger L. Wollenberg-Pool/Getty Images
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE