Obama’s Afghan exit plan
The president forged an agreement with NATO to hand over security to Afghan forces and withdraw most foreign troops by 2014.
What happened
President Obama started the countdown to the end of the war in Afghanistan this week, forging an agreement with the U.S.’s NATO allies to hand over security to Afghan forces and withdraw almost all foreign troops by 2014. “The Afghan War as we understand it is over,” Obama announced at a 60-nation summit in Chicago. The timetable agreed to by NATO leaders will see Afghan troops take over the lead combat role in mid-2013. Most of the 130,000 NATO soldiers now stationed in Afghanistan will be withdrawn the following year, although a small counterterrorism force will stay for another decade to train Afghan soldiers and pursue al Qaida fighters. Obama acknowledged that the Taliban remained “a robust enemy.” But he said that there would never be an “optimal point” to exit the country, and that the U.S. military thinks the Afghans are ready to stand on their own.
The summit’s display of unity was marred by a widening breach between the U.S. and Pakistan, which closed key supply routes into Afghanistan last year after 24 Pakistani soldiers were mistakenly killed in a U.S. airstrike. Obama refused to apologize for the strike, as Pakistan demanded, and at the NATO meeting, he pointedly snubbed the country’s president, Asif Ali Zardari. At a press conference to end the summit, an exasperated Obama warned Pakistan that it was in the country’s interests to work with the U.S. to avoid being “consumed” by extremists.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
What the editorials said
U.S. and Afghan National Army forces have made a lot of progress against the Taliban over the past two years, said The New York Times, and now control 260 of 403 districts, covering 65 percent of the population. But the Taliban remain relentless foes, especially in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, and the Afghan army is still “dependent on NATO for planning, management, air support, intelligence, and logistics.” If given insufficient funding and support after 2014, Afghanistan could easily “devolve into civil war.”
Americans have had enough of this war, said the Eugene, Ore., Register-Guard. The U.S. went into Afghanistan in 2001 with the aim of destroying al Qaida and killing Osama bin Laden. We’ve accomplished that mission. So let’s not waste any more American lives defending Afghanistan’s “thoroughly inefficient, corrupt, and despised government,” or trying to “resolve its ancient tribal conflicts.”
What the columnists said
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
History shows that Obama’s strategy is doomed to failure, said Michael Rubin in CommentaryMagazine.com. When the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, it left behind a 160,000-strong Afghan army, propped up with $3 billion a year in aid from Moscow. That experiment “ended in government collapse, civil war, and ultimately the vacuum which enabled 9/11.” The president is in denial if he believes it will end differently this time.
Obama actually has very low expectations for Afghanistan’s future, said David Sanger in The New York Times. Although he came into office saying that Afghanistan was the “good war,” aides say he quickly realized that the military could not articulate any reasonable endgame, and that Afghan President Hamid Karzai was corrupt and untrustworthy. Aides told Obama that even if the U.S. spent another $1 trillion and kept 100,000-plus troops there for a decade, we could not remake the feudal, corrupt society. By early 2011, the president had seen enough, and “told his staff to arrange a speedy, orderly exit.” Obama’s supposed support for this war was deeply cynical, said Peter Beinart in TheDailyBeast.com, but he won’t pay a political price for pulling out. Most Americans are sick of this conflict—66 percent want out, according to polls—so Mitt Romney won’t dare “attack Obama for having surrendered.”
The price for Obama’s “schizophrenic policy” will come later, said David Rothkopf in ForeignPolicy.com. If Karzai’s weak government falls after the U.S. pullout, the Taliban’s Islamist allies south of the border will likely move to topple the Pakistani government. The U.S. will then face the nightmare possibility of a nuclear-armed terrorist regime. Obama may have scored some political points in an election year, but when the “mess in Afghanistan and Pakistan grows uglier still, he will own those results.”
-
Why more and more adults are reaching for soft toys
Under The Radar Does the popularity of the Squishmallow show Gen Z are 'scared to grow up'?
By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published
-
Magazine solutions - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
By The Week US Published
-
Magazine printables - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
Puzzles and Quizzes Issue - December 27, 2024 / January 3, 2025
By The Week US Published
-
US election: who the billionaires are backing
The Explainer More have endorsed Kamala Harris than Donald Trump, but among the 'ultra-rich' the split is more even
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
By The Week UK Published
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
1 of 6 'Trump Train' drivers liable in Biden bus blockade
Speed Read Only one of the accused was found liable in the case concerning the deliberate slowing of a 2020 Biden campaign bus
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published