AMERICA: U.S. POLITICS
Obama now owns Afghan war and will be judged by it
JOHN IBBITSON
March 28, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A bad war destroys its president. Just ask the ghost of LBJ.
The war in Afghanistan is now Barack Obama's war, with his announcement yesterday of a plan to increase American forces there by another 4,000, on top of the 17,000 he has already committed.
The deployment comes with strict new benchmarks to measure progress, hundreds of civilian advisers and a major increase in foreign aid.
This strategy is Mr. Obama's response to a war that George W. Bush started and waged for seven years to something worse than a stalemate, with the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies in control of chunks of the country, with the central government corrupt and dysfunctional and with NATO forces unpopular and discredited by a weary, resentful population.
Rather like Iraq in 2006. And Mr. Obama's troop-surge-in-all-but-name attempts to duplicate the success of Iraq in Afghanistan, bearing in mind that they are two very different countries, and that the challenges in Afghanistan in many ways are more formidable: a difficult terrain, few natural resources, opium rather than oil, a history of chronic internal strife.
Equally important, Mr. Obama's war is the first, and will doubtless prove to be the biggest, test of the new President's commitment to multilateralism. Success depends on the co-operation of others: persuading India to ease tensions with Pakistan so that the Pakistan military can shift troops from its eastern border to fight in the west against the Taliban;
getting Russia and China and Iran to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem; keeping America's NATO allies committed to the cause, even as the United States assumes greater responsibility for that cause.
"As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part," the President said yesterday. The answer could determine the success or failure of this new surge.
It is a truism that presidents get elected talking about domestic policy and then govern by focusing on foreign policy, where they are less constrained by Congress and where there are more opportunities for historic accomplishments - along with greater risks of disaster, as Mr. Bush discovered. But Mr. Obama is an exception to this rule. For him, expanding public health care, improving public education, switching to alternative forms of energy are the driving priorities of his administration. And the recession consumes most of whatever policy oxygen might be left in the Oval Office.
But Afghanistan is the exception. Throughout the election campaign, Mr. Obama castigated the Republicans for letting the distractions of Iraq drain energy and resources from what he said was the war that really mattered: fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ironically, the President is employing in this war the lessons Mr. Bush learned in Iraq: flood the zone with troops; concentrate on building up the local military and police; invest heavily in the infrastructure of government and civil society.
He has two huge assets his predecessor lacked. In 2003, America went to war in Iraq with a military and intelligence community still primarily geared to fighting a hypothetical war with a non-existent Soviet Union.
Over the past six years, the Americans have taught themselves how to wage a counterinsurgency in a Muslim country. As we've seen in Iraq, they're getting better at nation-building.
Second, there is much more public support for this war. While the Iraq war created deep fissures back at home, most Americans agree that losing Afghanistan to the Taliban would put the United States in much greater danger of another terrorist attack. Al-Qaeda is still a hated enemy; Sept. 11 is seared into the collective consciousness, which has decided that Afghanistan is a "good war." The U.S. government has carte blanche from its people to do what it takes to break al-Qaeda's back.
"I support the strategy the President unveiled today because it reflects the advice of our commanders on the ground," said Republican congressman John Boehner, the House minority leader, in a statement. "I hope he will continue to honour their counsel because we should not allow political considerations here at home to trump the importance of achieving success in the region."
Such bipartisan support is a priceless asset. It means Mr. Obama will not have to wage his war at home as well as abroad.
For now, that is. If the war drags on throughout his first term with no visible improvement, if the Pakistani government proves unable or unwilling to root out the Taliban on its western frontier, if the Afghan army and Afghan government remain hopelessly inadequate to the task of protecting and running the country, if America's NATO allies, including Canada, decide that, now that this is a mostly American show, they can withdraw their troops and financial support - if, in other words Afghanistan goes south, then support for the war will collapse and Mr. Obama will face rebellion, starting from within his own Democratic caucus.
Already, a group of 15 left-wing Democratic and anti-war Republican representatives have banded together to oppose the war.
"A troop surge is not the answer," said Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Obama for his party's presidential nomination. "Afghan citizens and families do not need more destruction and violence. They need homes, jobs and education. They need security, the rule of law and opportunity.
"And a continued U.S. occupation and, even worse, an escalation is not going to provide that for them," he said.
If that sentiment spreads, it could imperil Mr. Obama's presidency, as Korea undermined Harry Truman's second term, Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson's administration and Iraq made George W. Bush one of America's most unpopular presidents.
Mr. Obama now owns this war. The American people and the world will judge him on how he runs it.
Obama now owns Afghan war and will be judged by it
JOHN IBBITSON
March 28, 2009
WASHINGTON -- A bad war destroys its president. Just ask the ghost of LBJ.
The war in Afghanistan is now Barack Obama's war, with his announcement yesterday of a plan to increase American forces there by another 4,000, on top of the 17,000 he has already committed.
The deployment comes with strict new benchmarks to measure progress, hundreds of civilian advisers and a major increase in foreign aid.
This strategy is Mr. Obama's response to a war that George W. Bush started and waged for seven years to something worse than a stalemate, with the Taliban and its al-Qaeda allies in control of chunks of the country, with the central government corrupt and dysfunctional and with NATO forces unpopular and discredited by a weary, resentful population.
Rather like Iraq in 2006. And Mr. Obama's troop-surge-in-all-but-name attempts to duplicate the success of Iraq in Afghanistan, bearing in mind that they are two very different countries, and that the challenges in Afghanistan in many ways are more formidable: a difficult terrain, few natural resources, opium rather than oil, a history of chronic internal strife.
Equally important, Mr. Obama's war is the first, and will doubtless prove to be the biggest, test of the new President's commitment to multilateralism. Success depends on the co-operation of others: persuading India to ease tensions with Pakistan so that the Pakistan military can shift troops from its eastern border to fight in the west against the Taliban;
getting Russia and China and Iran to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem; keeping America's NATO allies committed to the cause, even as the United States assumes greater responsibility for that cause.
"As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part," the President said yesterday. The answer could determine the success or failure of this new surge.
It is a truism that presidents get elected talking about domestic policy and then govern by focusing on foreign policy, where they are less constrained by Congress and where there are more opportunities for historic accomplishments - along with greater risks of disaster, as Mr. Bush discovered. But Mr. Obama is an exception to this rule. For him, expanding public health care, improving public education, switching to alternative forms of energy are the driving priorities of his administration. And the recession consumes most of whatever policy oxygen might be left in the Oval Office.
But Afghanistan is the exception. Throughout the election campaign, Mr. Obama castigated the Republicans for letting the distractions of Iraq drain energy and resources from what he said was the war that really mattered: fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ironically, the President is employing in this war the lessons Mr. Bush learned in Iraq: flood the zone with troops; concentrate on building up the local military and police; invest heavily in the infrastructure of government and civil society.
He has two huge assets his predecessor lacked. In 2003, America went to war in Iraq with a military and intelligence community still primarily geared to fighting a hypothetical war with a non-existent Soviet Union.
Over the past six years, the Americans have taught themselves how to wage a counterinsurgency in a Muslim country. As we've seen in Iraq, they're getting better at nation-building.
Second, there is much more public support for this war. While the Iraq war created deep fissures back at home, most Americans agree that losing Afghanistan to the Taliban would put the United States in much greater danger of another terrorist attack. Al-Qaeda is still a hated enemy; Sept. 11 is seared into the collective consciousness, which has decided that Afghanistan is a "good war." The U.S. government has carte blanche from its people to do what it takes to break al-Qaeda's back.
"I support the strategy the President unveiled today because it reflects the advice of our commanders on the ground," said Republican congressman John Boehner, the House minority leader, in a statement. "I hope he will continue to honour their counsel because we should not allow political considerations here at home to trump the importance of achieving success in the region."
Such bipartisan support is a priceless asset. It means Mr. Obama will not have to wage his war at home as well as abroad.
For now, that is. If the war drags on throughout his first term with no visible improvement, if the Pakistani government proves unable or unwilling to root out the Taliban on its western frontier, if the Afghan army and Afghan government remain hopelessly inadequate to the task of protecting and running the country, if America's NATO allies, including Canada, decide that, now that this is a mostly American show, they can withdraw their troops and financial support - if, in other words Afghanistan goes south, then support for the war will collapse and Mr. Obama will face rebellion, starting from within his own Democratic caucus.
Already, a group of 15 left-wing Democratic and anti-war Republican representatives have banded together to oppose the war.
"A troop surge is not the answer," said Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich, who ran unsuccessfully against Mr. Obama for his party's presidential nomination. "Afghan citizens and families do not need more destruction and violence. They need homes, jobs and education. They need security, the rule of law and opportunity.
"And a continued U.S. occupation and, even worse, an escalation is not going to provide that for them," he said.
If that sentiment spreads, it could imperil Mr. Obama's presidency, as Korea undermined Harry Truman's second term, Vietnam destroyed Lyndon Johnson's administration and Iraq made George W. Bush one of America's most unpopular presidents.
Mr. Obama now owns this war. The American people and the world will judge him on how he runs it.
