What does the ongoing BP oil spill
imbroglio in the Gulf have to do with the war in Afghanistan? Probably not much, from the vantage point in
the United States. But here in London
this week, the two issues are being linked in some ways that should be worrisome
for the Obama administration.
Two particular stories have featured in headlines
in the major U.K. newspapers this week: BP's plummeting
share price from President
Obama's rhetorical attacks, and the London visit by Secretary
Gates and General Petraeus urging a continued strong U.K. troop commitment to
the NATO mission in Afghanistan (followed by Prime Minister David Cameron's surprise
visit to Afghanistan today). Separate
though they may be, the two stories are combining to produce one narrative in
the minds of many British citizens: the Obama administration is attacking a
pillar of our economy while urging us to sacrifice even more blood and treasure
in Afghanistan.
BP of course bears the most blame for the
catastrophic spill, as well as responsibility for stopping it and remedying the
damage. And in the first few weeks after
the rig exploded, there was little sympathy for BP even here in the United Kingdom. Most U.K. media coverage initially focused on
the horrific environmental damage being wrought as well as the Obama
Administration's apparent insouciance as the oil continued to gush.
But now that attacking BP (or "British Petroleum" as Obama
calls it, even though that has not been the company's name since 1998) has
emerged as a core tactic in the Obama Administration's scramble to arrest their
own falling political fortunes, they risk doing real damage to relations with a
key ally and the largest non-U.S. troop contributor to Afghanistan.
As recently as two months ago, BP was
Britain's largest company by market cap, and is a core holding of most British
pension funds. In other words, it is not
just BP executives or investors in the City who take a hit when BP's share
price plummets, but also every average Brit who has any type of stake in a
retirement fund. Which is most of the
country -- many of whom have also grown weary and skeptical of their nation's
military role in Afghanistan.
Last week had already demonstrated one
unintended consequences of the administration's intensifying campaign against
BP: the vocal attacks that drive the share price down also erode billions of
dollars in market value and diminishes the resources BP will have available to
pay for the damage, clean-up, and compensation. The White House needs to be mindful of not going too far and triggering
a second unintended consequence of further eroding British support for their
force posture in Afghanistan. Fortunately
at the U.K. end, Prime Minister Cameron, at least up to this point, is trying
deftly to strike a balance and not further escalate tensions with the United
States either over BP or over Afghanistan.
Pursuing a unified grand strategy is always
a hard task, but this situation shows even more acutely the challenges of
linking domestic and foreign policy such as the Obama administration's National Security Strategy attempts to do. Last week it was American strategic interests
in Asia that got short shrift, as Obama cancelled
(again) his Australia/Indonesia trip to focus on the BP spill. This week it is the U.S.-U.K.
relationship that is suffering, as a beleaguered White House tries to shore
up its domestic political standing at the expense of relations with a key ally.
Read More
(6)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE