Join 350,000+ subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of
The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
You are now subscribed
Your newsletter sign-up was successful
Want to add more newsletters?
An account already exists for this email address, please log in.
Obama nears a decision on Afghanistan
President Obama is insisting that any new military plan “put us on a path toward ending the war.’’
President Obama has rejected all four options presented to him about shoring up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan, and is insisting that any new military plan “put us on a path toward ending the war.’’ Obama’s own doubts about sending new troops were reinforced by cables from the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who warned it would be futile to try to buttress President Hamid Karzai’s corrupt central government, which recently won re-election amid widespread evidence of voter fraud. Obama has strongly signaled he is leaning toward a narrower mission, designed to keep the Taliban and al Qaida at bay, rather than a broader, nation-building effort. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is siding with the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has asked for at least 40,000 additional troops.
Speaking in China this week, Obama denied charges that he’s “dithering,’’ and said a decision would come within a few weeks. “The American people will have a lot of clarity about what we’re doing, how we’re going to succeed, how much this thing is going to cost,” he said. There would be “no open-ended commitment.’’ In a show of support for the beleaguered Afghan government, Clinton made a surprise trip to Afghanistan this week to attend Karzai’s inauguration.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Join more than 350,000 subscribers and keep yourself informed with a selection of The Week’s most interesting, enlightening and entertaining stories - plus daily puzzles.
Obama is keeping the troops, as well as our allies, in a painful limbo, said the New York Post. “It’s been two-plus months and counting” since Obama said he was reconsidering his options in Afghanistan. Now he tells us he’ll take several more weeks to mull it over. That leaves our troops in “a deadly holding action” until “the undecider-in-chief” makes up his mind. It would appear that Obama is leaning toward raising the flag of surrender, said Investor’s Business Daily. If that’s true, “he should end the charade and level with us.”
Actually, he has been leveling with us, said the San Francisco Chronicle. Obama has been up-front about how complex the challenges are in Afghanistan, and he obviously has been weighing his options with care—as he should, considering the stakes. Imagine if Bush had conducted a “genuine debate” before plunging the nation into the disastrous war in Iraq? Despite the short-term uncertainty, “the White House is doing it the right way.”
What the columnists said
Sign up for The Week’s Politics Recap newsletter
Making sense of the week's political news, delivered every Wednesday
It’s fine that Obama is more deliberative than Bush, said David Broder in The Washington Post. But “he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.” The fact is, Obama appointed McChrystal to lead the war effort in Afghanistan; he didn’t inherit him. “I don’t see how Obama can refuse to back up the commander he picked and the strategy he is recommending.” There are no perfect options, but “we have to gamble that security will bring political progress—as it has done in Iraq.”
But how long will that take? said Tony Karon in Time.com. Afghans aren’t anywhere near ready to take over their own security. Only half of Afghanistan’s 94,000 troops are combat trained—and that’s if you believe the official numbers. Given the Karzai administration’s reputation for corruption and incompetence, “not many Afghans are going to be willing to risk their lives to defend it.” Yet it could be possible to “circumvent the Karzai problem,” said Trudy Rubin in ThePhiladelphia Inquirer. Even in Afghanistan, politics is local. If U.S. troops go out to the provinces and bolster local governors, providing security and aid, Afghans will respond. If Obama does decide on a surge, he’ll have to couple it with “deft private diplomacy.”
In the end, the delay in a decision won’t matter, said Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. “All will depend on the outcome.” If Obama’s eventual strategy works, “history will not say he was indecisive and Hamlet-like.” If it fails and Afghanistan falls into jihadist hands, “history will not celebrate his wonderfully cerebral deliberative style.” But at this point, we don’t need any pretty speeches. We just want to know: “What will make America, and the world, safer—leaving or staying?”
