FAYETTEVILLE — Decisions on complex and weighty foreign policy and security issues are being pondered in Washington. They could determine the course of U.S.policy in the coming years and have profound ramifications.
The Obama administration is faced with making some critical choices, particularly in regard to Afghanistan-Pakistan, as well as the problem of how to deal with Iran.
As in the case of health care legislation, however, President Obama is looking for a middle ground, a terrain that seems to be difficult to find.
And politics certainly doesn’t stop at the water’s edge these days, as was the case in the days of Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg and bipartisan foreign policy during the Truman administration.
Indeed, we recently witnessed the sorry spectacle of some Obama opponents cheering over the failure of Chicago to be selected as host city for the 2016 Olympics, despite Obama’s trip to the International Olympics Committee’s meeting in Copenhagen on behalf of his hometown. Some criticized Obama for making the trip, as if American presidents haven’t often spent much more time on much less significant missions. And they cheered when Chicago lost out, viewing it as a repudiation of Obama, which made them gleeful.
The notion of wanting to see an American president fail at everything he attempts does not speak well of the commitment to the functioning of our form of government or of an understanding of the challenges we face. If the shoe were on the other foot and the critics were being treated thusly, those doing the criticizing and belittling would be dubbed as unpatriotic.
In the present environment those decisions being weighed in Washington clearly have both policy and political dimensions. And it is evident that President Obama is not unaware of the political aspects and the inevitable difficulties he would face in ordering foreign military actions that are divisive domestically.
Eight years ago this week when the Bush administration sent U.S. forces into Afghanistan, there was widespread support. The action came less than a month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and was aimed at retaliating against the Taliban for providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Overthrowing the hold of the Taliban zealots on Afghanistan was a corollary goal. The U.S. effort enjoyed some temporary success and the Taliban government fell.
However, the Bush administration soon turned its primary focus to Iraq and did not sustain the effort in Afghanistan. The government there is now considered ineffective and corrupt. Bin Laden was never captured and although al-Qaida has been weakened and dispersed, it retains a stronghold along the Pakistan border in the largely ungoverned tribal areas where bin Laden is thought to be located.
Elements of the Taliban also operate from and within Pakistan, which remains a volatile nation and a highly uncertain ally. There is a deep strain of anti-Americanism in the country. The Obama administration is, however, attempting to strengthen relations with the Pakistani government, and a key figure in that process is U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson, a native of Fort Smith, Ark. U.S. officials are pressing Pakistan to act forcefully against Taliban leaders, including those who use Pakistan as an operations base in their insurgency against U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
It is widely believed that significant portions of U.S aid to Pakistan have been diverted from the intended purpose of battling militants. Congress approved and sent to President Obama legislationtripling aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year but with conditions attached aimed at preventing diversion of those funds. Those conditions led to complaints from Pakistan about U.S. meddling.
Meanwhile, the on-the-ground reality in Afghanistan is that the Taliban has regained considerable strength and exercises control over significant areas of the country. Taliban insurgents have also been more active, which has been evident in recent days.
Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is recommending 40,000 more troops be sent there, adding to the 68,000 U.S. forces and 37,000 from other NATO countries already in Afghanistan.
So Obama finds himself facing issues on which even his own advisers are divided. And while some leading Democrats oppose any increase of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, most Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, believe that Obama should accede to McChrystal’s request and do so promptly.
An alternative to expanding U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan that has some backing, particularly among Democrats, is to focus more on Pakistan, with an emphasis on drone strikes and special forces operations that have been somewhat effective there, including recent success in killing or capturing some key al-Qaida operatives.
In the strategy sessions this week, however, Obama emphasized that he did not plan to significantly reduce U.S. forces in Afghanistan or turn to a strictly counter-terrorism strategy. But he has also indicated that his goal is to defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “We will target al-Qaida wherever they take root,” Obama said recently.
Underlying this deliberation about future policy is a factor U.S. officials are sometimes slow to acknowledge: There are limits to American power and American resources.
Here’s just one statistic to keep in mind - the Pentagon estimates that it costs $250,000 annually to keep a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan; supporting an Afghan soldier costs about $12,000 a year.
As Obama and those around him search for the appropriate course of action, there is evidence of rising antiwar sentiment. Eight years ago, nine of 10 Americans approved of U.S. military action in Afghanistan. Now, a new Associated Press poll shows support has dropped to 40 percent. Three-fourths of Republicans favor sending more troops, but 60 percent of Democrats oppose.
Can Obama find a middle ground on this issue? Is the narrower counter-terrorism approach a satisfactory alternative to a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign? Does the United States have an obligation to the Afghan people and would a drawdown of U.S. forces lead to catastrophic conditions there? Is there a middle ground that would involve sending more military trainers but not more combat personnel? Some see a continuation of McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy but with only a limited troop increase as a middle ground, but that seems to be highly problematic. McChrystal doesn’t think a modest increase would achieve the desired goals.
The administration is being pressured by some to act quickly and the president has been accused of dawdling by critics. However, hurried action could be costly in many ways. This is a time for deliberate deliberations
Hoyt Purvis is a journalism and international relations professor and served as press secretary to Sen. J.William Fulbright, foreign/defense policy adviser to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, and as chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. His column appears on Sundays.
Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/11/2009