Obama’s strategy for Pakistan, Afghanistan is more developed but still needs an exit
March 30, 2009 at 5:15 am by Ben LuongoBy Ben Luongo
PoHo contributor
President Barack Obama announced on Friday his new Afghanistan/Pakistan strategy, which he says has a clear goal:
To disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is the cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same – we will defeat you.
Listen to his speech below:
To achieve this, Obama is sending an additional 4.000 U.S. troops to the 17,000 scheduled to be deployed to the region in the next couple of months. He is also sending a civilian “surge” which would include mostly diplomats and specialists.
Is this a good idea?
I wrote a piece last week concerning Obama expressing his interest to focus more of our efforts in Afghanistan. I was critical of pursuing Afghanistan because there was a lack of clarity as to what the plan would be. However on Friday, Obama narrowed the main objective to defeating terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which should have been the main objective all along. This is a smart goal because it doesn’t allow any room for democratization, nation building or any other careless crusade. Now that we have our goal, we can get in and get the hell out, right?
Not so fast. There still isn’t a defined exit strategy or exit date, which is the reason why so many are willing to call this strategy “Obama’s Vietnam.” Peace Action, which is an anti-war network, petitioned both democrat and republican members of congress to dissuade President Obama from sending more troops to the region. The executive director of Peace Action, Kevin Martin, invoked the analogy of Vietnam to describe the Obama’s Af/Pak strategy.
While President Obama has made some good statements on increasing diplomacy and economic aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the emphasis is clearly on military operations. John F. Kennedy was in a comparable situation when he was elected. He chose to escalate then as well. And the consequence of his decision left our country mired in an unwinnable war
While I am displeased with the idea that Obama does not have an exit plan as of yet, I don’t think that we can compare his Af/Pak strategy to Vietnam. First, there is a valid argument for an Af/Pak plan simply because these are the breeding grounds for the terrorists that attacked us and one could argue that it’s prudent to prevent another 9/11. Compare this to Vietnam, and let’s throw Iraq in there also, where there was less of a necessity to invade these countries.
Second, and probably more important, is that this plan carries a legitimacy that Vietnam and Iraq didn’t have. Obama called Afghan President Karzai and Pakistan President Zardari on Thursday which both of them expressed a willingness to work with the U.S. In fact President Zardari said that this plan would “further cement these ties.” Furthermore, only hours before Obama announced his strategy, Russia hosted a conference of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization where members agreed on playing a larger role in the stabilization of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran attended the meeting and its Deputy Foreign Minister Ahundzadeh urged for new ideas to help stabilize the region. He said “people are fed up – the killing of the innocents.”
There is an increasing sense of the legitimacy for intervention. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are allowing U.S. efforts, while others, such as Russia and Iran, are also suggesting playing a more active role in the stability of the region.
Things may be coming together for Obama’s strategy but the consent of America and of the rest of the world will dry up quickly if there is no end in sight, especially with America’s war-fatigue after seven years of Iraq. Obama has set benchmarks to guide the strategy and maintain forward momentum, which is a good start. However, if he wants to maintain support for his intervention then he is going to have to provide a date to withdraw. This is especially important if he is looking to get more support at the NATO summit next week.
