Virtue of realism
Toolbox
Published: December 3, 2009
President Obama has decided to gamble on realism as he tries to foster stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The strategy outlined in his West Point speech offers no easy way out of a military and political morass that has grown worse during years of neglect by the U.S. government. The realism prescribed by Obama in his speech on Wednesday is a stiff dose for both the American and Afghan people.
Obama has drawn criticism from fellow Democrats for his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont is among those critics, saying that Obama had reached the "wrong conclusion" about how to proceed. Increasing the presence of U.S. troops, Welch argues, will only provoke the insurgency.
Obama has also drawn criticism for laying down a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Obama has given Afghan President Hamid Karzai 18 months to get his house in order. After that time, it is Obama's goal to begin a withdrawal of the expanded U.S. contingent.
But realism dictates that Obama do exactly what he has proposed to do. He explained in clear terms on Wednesday why U.S. forces are in Afghanistan in the first place and the interest of the United States and its allies in bolstering stability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Extremist groups that threaten the United States are gaining strength in both nations. Al-Qaida, which attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, flowered in Afghanistan following the chaos that arose there after the departure of Soviet forces caused the United States to lose interest.
If the United States loses interest again, the Karzai regime could crumble, allowing the return of the Taliban and al-Qaida. But it wouldn't just be the corrupt Kabul government that would crumble. It would be elements throughout the country that are struggling to establish the rudiments of civilization — schools (especially for girls), health care, agriculture, basic infrastructure, and basic human rights. Not only would hope for a decent society evaporate, but a new Taliban regime would become host to extremist forces dedicated to attacking the U.S. again.
Further, Afghanistan would become a base for renewed attacks in Pakistan. Pakistan, which is armed with nuclear weapons, must not succumb to chaos and extremism.
Welch and other liberals believe that a beefed up U.S. force in Afghanistan will only encourage the insurgency. It is true that hostility to foreign invaders is an Afghan tradition. But many Afghans understand the role of U.S. forces in helping to repel the Taliban, which they loath. If the U.S. eschews torture, minimizes collateral damage and demonstrates the benefits of siding with the Afghan government, resentment of the U.S. presence ought to be minimized.
Deciding not to send more troops would be to indulge several delusions — that somehow muddling along would lead to a better outcome or that a quick exit would not lead to a dangerous level of chaos. That's why Obama has decided to gamble on realism.
It is a gamble because of the chance that 18 months from now the Afghan and American partnership there would have failed to put in place the kind of domestic order that will be necessary to blunt the appeal of the Taliban. The quick deployment of the new force is meant to show the Afghans that the United States means business and that the nation now has a last chance to put in place institutions that will help it cohere.
Obama's decision to lay down a timeline has drawn criticism from those such as Sen. John McCain who say the 18-month deadline will allow the Taliban to lie low, waiting for U.S. forces to leave, when they will return to take down a weak central government.
But to state that our commitment is of limited duration has one virtue: It is true. Already the patience of the American people is thin. To propose an open-ended commitment to police the Afghan nation would be to indulge the delusion that President Bush indulged in Iraq: That the United States is all powerful. For Afghanistan to stand on its own, it must stand on its own. A surge of U.S. troops, combined with a renewed development effort on the civilian side, will give Afghanistan a chance to do so.
If the Taliban believe they can wait us out, they may find after 18 months that the Afghan government has gained greater legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people and improved its chances of withstanding the insurgency. At least that is the hope of the Obama administration.
In his address on Wednesday Obama was mindful of the sacrifices he was asking the American people to endure. Yet he showed he respected the American people enough to speak to us truthfully about a situation for which there are no easy solutions.
14