More troops, less trouble?

In his speech on Tuesday at the  West Point Academy, President Obama unveiled his new concept for dealing with ongoing 8-year war in Afghanistan. The strategy did not surprise most of the commentators, primarily due to earlier signals from the Pentagon, Congress, and lastly a  sole situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which allowed a rather rational presumption that the key pre-decision postulates will be addressed.

Domestic implications

Obama’s speech ended a long period of the review process, where administration officials under National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones put together a new strategic concept. The shape of the new strategy proves undoubtedly that one of the primary concerns was the need of a broad domestic compromise. President  Obama has been under a formidable pressure during the last couple of weeks from both sides of the political spectrum in Congress, the military establishment, and voices within his own administration stating the necessity for increasing the  American presence – a concept he never firmly supported, if at all. The influential winners therefore appear to be the military establishment, Secretary of Defence, and Republican Congressmen who were strong advocates of amplifying the American effort. Other  viewpoints have not been however entirely isolated, which clearly signifies administration’s intention to give every voice of criticism a sort of quid pro quo. President’s plan involved:

• an 18-month timeline + involving the international community – to pacify opposition within his own party opposing any increase in troop levels.

• a strong emphasis on necessity to curb corruption within the Afghan government - a bow towards powerful Democrats, such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives – Nancy Pelosi, or John Kerry – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee, and others who stressed the need to press the Afghan government.
• stressing the importance of Pakistani involvement in the war emphasis on Pakistan appeared in formerly publicized plan envisioned  by Vice President Joe Biden.

Despite the aforementioned concessions, there’s a tough battle ahead of the administration in Congress for this $30 billion conceptual colossus, due Republican opposition towards the timeline, which is under heavy fire as being  a reckless step, emboldening Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, placing the Afghan population in danger of dealing with the insurgency on their own.

International Implications

Conceptual approach of the renewed American effort in Afghanistan allows a quiet optimism. The President strongly highlighted the US stance on its presence as an aid, not an occupation, and promised future partnership with the Afghan nation, rather than patronizing and making it a client state. American surge  presumably might contribute to stabilizing the situation, especially within the southern provinces, where the situation in recent weeks has been disturbing both to international forces and civilian population.Nevertheless, any military offensive ought to be applied  with  subsequent civilian measures supported by the international community to secure the results – a truism, which the President largely omitted in his speech by not delivering any tangible examples on to how to introduce these measures. Expanding the American effort, despite wide criticism cannot be assessed entirely as a mistake. Stakes are high, and those involve not only US security, a regional stability in face of  insubordinate Iran, but the NATO alliance, for which the involvement in Afghanistan remains a crucial test in efforts to redefine its entity in a post-Cold War global architecture.

Obama implicitly urged the Karzai government, that changes must be made in order to increase the credibility of the Afghan authorities. President declared a support for the Afghan administration, but only for those who build, not destroy, critically addressing the results of the elections as fraudulent. Furthermore, the renewed approach has been fixed by the 18-month timeline . Afghan government will be under significant pressure to implement policies curbing corruption and increasing popular support, for the foreign presence cannot, and will not last forever. President’s statement denied acceptance for the possibility of further wasting of  international aid by the Karzai administration. Although a time-frame  to commence the withdrawal has been introduced,the results of Congressional mission of Secretary Clinton ang Gates to calm the opposition revealed the fact that July 2011 is not definite. Secretary Gates announced the evaluation of the situation and eventual changes in policy approximately by December 2010. The time-line provides necessary pressure for the Afghan authorities to start taking matters in their own hands, and addresses the population giving a clear message that the American interest lays in a secure Afghanistan, not in eternal territorial occupation. Primary task of the new 30,000 troops is to reverse the Taliban momentum, ensure proper and rapid training of Afghan military and police , and along with International forces engaging in efforts resembling those in Iraq – transferring the responsibility to Afghan forces province by province.

In addition, the matter of Pakistani involvement in the war was strongly emphasized by the President, who declared support for Pakistan’s efforts, and acknowledged the importance of the offensive launched by the military in South Waziristan, which can be interpreted as a hand extended towards the Pakistani public, infuriated by recent drone attacks causing heavy civilian casualties, along with a debate on whether the covert operations violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Despite these positive, calming messages, Obama implicitly warned Pakistan, that American support is conditional and depends on the willingness to conduct the war along with the US and international forces. The strategy outlined at West Point places a strong emphasis on Al Qaeda’s safe havens beyond the Afghan border, and requires increased efforts to deny the terrorists their control of those territories. There are voices within the Pakistan’s officials and public, who criticize this approach as unjust – placing too much of a responsibility on Pakistani military offensive, and defining the partnership as conditional. Whether the US stance will prove to be effective remains unclear, however strong message to Pakistani officials had to be given – at least due to the elusive involvement of the intelligence in the terrorist activity, and further, to send a strong message, that America seeks cooperation, due to the mutual interest of the US and Pakistan in creating and sustaining security in those regions.

As shown above, the new concept for involvement consists of myriad ideas introduced by domestic voices with opposite positions, and incompletely addresses main issues troubling the international coalition trying to deal with terrorism in the region. While the strategy allows a limited optimism, it might as well be a failure if not implemented cautiously. The administration must provide a clear outline of a civilian approach to Afghan security, which is a critical factor in a country that has not been conquered since Alexander the Great. Afghan  people must start to feel more secure, but also need to receive a sustainable basis like schools, infrastructure, prospects of stabilization in their national economy- elements critical to ensure the beginning of a  steady development and prosperity. Increasing military effort does not guarantee success in those areas, therefore does not guarantee any success at all . War in Afghanistan, as a global war on terrorism will not succeed without soft-power measures and nation-building. President’s total neglect of this critical aspect in his speech, proves that the administration has still a lot of conceptual work to do, leaving this strategy somewhat still in-draft. Nevertheless, whether or not the key elements of this new vision will prove to be effective, is to be determined after the first stages of implementation.

A Letter to the voters

To many Americans, due to fatal economic situation, this election, at least its final phase is primarily about the United States and its internal economic stability. While this is profoundly understandable and justified, I think it is important to acknowledge, that the choice the American public will make tomorrow will have a sound impact upon the whole world, which empirically has already been proved, a sheer amount of attention this election has received by the media worldwide being sufficient evidence supporting my point.

Indeed, America is at the crossroads right now. Two terms of the Bush administration had a devastating impact upon the reputation of the United States as the global source of stability and prosperity. While still retaining its hegemonic prevailing position, it faces economic challenges from emerging giants in Asia and Europe and to the South, also recently dealing with as some commentators state a most formidable economic issue of all time.

I certainly do not belong among those who support the view stating that America faces its hegemonic decline. America still remains a global first power – politically and militarily – Washington remains a Global Rome to quote Zbigniew Brzezinski, both in economic, political and foremost cultural terms. Possible impact of the crisis in the face of the rising China and other competitors does not distort this image, for America will most likely retain its position as the most innovative economy in the world – innovation being a critical factor differentiating it from other rising actors.

The situation however is far from where it is supposed to be. Foreign policy conducted by George W. Bush during his 2 terms profoundly turned global public acceptance to American actions, questioning its values, that were appealing to many as lately as 10 years ago. After Iraq key allies from not so distant Cold War era turned their backs and criticized America for its unilateral negligence for the international law and collective security – a system created based on American values and promoted by American political elite.

The next president in terms of foreign relations has a tough assignment – the US foreign doctrine needs to be restructured – shifted from ideological and dichotomist approach to more multilateral and compromise-based co-existence with other actors. America as a leader must face and accept the rise of other regions and states; herein the perception plays a critical role, American leadership should introduce a more ‘plural’ stance towards the new global architecture. The United States will and undeniably should defend its interest, though never it shall not forget that its role and position is no longer what it used to be a decade ago – a position as of now gradually inclined towards a primus inter pares. While the aforementioned state of affairs is far from being accomplished, its stages must be recognized and a proper response to them should be introduced. While rising eastern economies pose a remarkable challenge to America, they ought not to be perceived as threats, rather as partners. America should forget about ‘crusades’, ‘global evil axis’, ‘who’s not with us is against us’ and many more ideological slogans introduced by the former administration. Awareness of this fact, perhaps explains the reason why McCain’s idea of creating a League of Democracies has been announced by the Brookings Institution as one of the worst plans for current foreign policy – it will antagonize China and Russia, which already have worsened relations with the US, while placing them on the same line, a position neglecting remarkable differences between the two in many dimensions from society to politics. Results of approaches that resemble League of Democracies conducted by former administration in Iraq or in the war on terror are commonly known and obviously negative.

War in Afghanistan and in Iraq, economic and environmental issues proved the inevitable fact –that America cannot unilaterally solve every single issue signifying a relative peril towards its own or global security. There can be no further progress in terms of global warming without engaging China, no progress in Afghanistan and Iraq without the support of both regional and European actors, resurgent left-wing radicalism threatening stability of the region will grow stronger in South America if democratic partners of America will be further unconsidered by the US foreign policy, economic challenges will not be averted without cooperation with China and the European Union etc.

Threats to global security – fundamentalist Islam, Iran, North Korea, and other regimes cannot be dealt with using military force. Diplomacy needs to be re-introduced – and diplomacy clearly does not resemble amicable coffee- accompanied conversations – Kissinger-Mao, Reagan – Gorbachev, Albright – Milosevic to name a few, and generally Cold War era legacy were certainly not an instance proving that point. America should acquire a diplomatic stance due to fatal impact of the Iraq war to its reputation; though also due to inevitable peril of military overstretch if another conflict would be introduced without resolving others. For that reason as well, due to pulsation of security situation around the globe, American leadership needs to focus on Afghanistan and resurgent Al Qaeda in Pakistan and provide a clear strategy for withdrawal from Iraq, which does not mean a defeat and will undeniably affect the mobilization of internal political elites to resolve Iraq’s issues on their own, with assistance of the US. War on terror requires reconsideration as well. American leaders need to focus more on repelling the support for radicalism and anti-west ideologies, which obviously cannot be assured with military instruments, constantly resurgent Al Qaeda 7 years after the invasion of Afghanistan proves ineffectiveness of military approach and necessity of using others – supported by soft power terms and diplomacy.

A candidate who in my view is capable of accomplishing the aforementioned goals and many more, which I did not number above, and foremost restoring America’s reputation and position in the world is Barack Obama. Obama calls for the return of multilateral approach to global issues, cooperation, rather that confrontation, diplomacy rather than conflict, realism rather than ideological prejudice, practical engagement rather than antagonizing and fear. Obama’s plan for economy and foreign policy seems to be more compelling, a plan for Iraq is structured, possesses a deadline, unlike McCain’s, who was ‘delicate’ enough to publicly support a hundred year-long presence there if proved necessary. Obama’s strategy involves collective responses to global challenges – a chance to restore influence of an important to global security actor –United Nations, and more prudent decisions considering concerns expressed by the global community. Supported by formidable experts as Joe Biden, Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Warren Buffet and others, Obama represents a new quality combined with old wisdom – credibility, experience and most importantly hope to restore a pre-Bush America, which values and conduct were respected and appealing to the global community.

The choice however is yours, do not forget though– it will affect also those who do not have the right to decide.

“One heck” of a debate…

One, distinct clash of vice presidential candidates in this campaign was widely anticipated due to rather tied results of previous showdown between Obama and McCain and stunning media focus on VPs with respect to that. Both candidates had to face and deal with remarkable media pre-debate assessments, especially Gov. Sarah Palin whose -being absolutely delicate – ‘unfortunate’ interview in CBS surprised, and not necessarily in a positive manner, both left and right-oriented commentators and the public in general.

Both candidates had to prove their credibility – Biden his prudence , Palin her experience – which is why this debate and its aftermath appealed precisely to the undecided section of American electorate, for neither of the two participants committed any fatal mistake or undertook a move that would break those solidly decided and turn them towards respective tickets. Biden’s situation seemed more severe :

• being already in advantage (tremendous background and foreign policy credentials),
• being a man (taking Palin down decisively had a risk of turning women voters away attached to it),
• being previously a supporter of war in Iraq and in disagreement with Obama in congressional resolutions regarding that issue, which Gov. Palin pointed out during the debate.

Palin’s situation was no bed of roses either – expectations indicated another gaffes, and troubles with responding to questions regarding state matters. Palin had to dispell her image of incompetence recently drawn in the debate over her credentials , and that was not an easy thing to do.

The organizers focused again on the same issues that were discussed earlier in previous presidential debate, however this one was better prepared in terms of merits. Foreign policy issues were uptaded with Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the climate change. Neither of the candidates showed any sharp-ended differences on the first issue, though we could see entirely different approaches with respect to climate change. Senator Biden and Gov. Palin did not agree upon the causes of global warming, which Biden described as undoubtedly man-made, while Palin did not attribute any shifts in climate with misconduct of men. Palin focused on a well known element of McCain’s eviromental/energy strategy – offshore drilling, and interconnected enviromental issues with U.S. energy situation. Biden prudently highlighted Obama’s postulates for new technologies such as clean coal and the importance of exporting it to primary polluters (one being China) and emphasized on McCain’s lack of commitment for them throughout congressional votings as well as deficiencies in McCain’s enviromental plan.

In general, Senator Biden’s posture in the debate revealed and proved correct, majority of pre-debate comments regarding his approach to this showdown – he did not intend to discredit Palin herself, instead focused primarily on John McCain, which in my view was a correct formula for success. Biden consequently discredited McCain’s strategies in every aspect from the economy to Iran, highlighting fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans, which was necessary after the last debate, where the line was not drawn directly enough. In a very important moment – that is at the end of the debate he elaborated on ‘maverick’ image of republican ticket and intended to slam it down, after numerous repetitions of that phrase in praises raised by Palin – succesfully as I suppose. “Maverick he is not” could without a doubt serve as a catch-phrase of that debate. Biden’s success was also appealing to emotions, which in previous debate was entirely McCain’s field (family values, single parenting and addressing the troops abroad). Obviously that scored few points for him. On the negative side of Biden’s performance it is important to focus on crucial element of Democratic strategy throughout the campaign – which is indicating the Bush administration’s failures. Palin took advantage of Biden’s notorious as she entitled it – ‘finger-pointing’. This should be a warning. Bush administration is certainly not admired among the public, however debating on current issues should be more constructive, over-emphasizing Bush’s failures is not a firm recipe for the White House, and at some point ‘…past is prologue’ may not be enough.

As for Sarah Palin’s performance – it is safe to say that she saved her VP position in this debate. Prior to the debate news media expressed republicans’s concern about whether the choice made by John McCain was right. Her performance will definitely cause reconsideration by aforementioned republican commentators. She spoke directly to the camera, was more opened than Biden and less serious – being able to joke during a debate after such pressure endured before, is a remarkable feat. Palin intended to highlight her experiences derived from governing Alaska – primarily issues of energy and economy. In addition, she advocated McCain’s policies and intended to discredit both Obama (same issues as did McCain previously) and Biden (here questioning his allegedly ambiguous position on war in Iraq). Governor definitely surprised her critics and foes and succeeded in tasks assigned to her by various commentators. Negative aspect in my opinion was her language expressions, statesmen of a statue she aspires to become should rather avoid excessive uses of phrases like ‘Darn right’. What could also be found slightly annoying were her constant praises to McCain, ‘maverick’ being one, and dismissing the necessity of reconsidering some programs from the election strategy due to economic crisis and praising McCain’s leadership skills instead -  being another.  Question at hand now is really the one posed by one of democratic commentators right before the debate: Is letting Palin be Palin as  some commentators indicate should be the right approach while judging credentials of a candidate aspiring for a second most important office in America? To some – Palin’s perfomance does not prove her credibility.

Ultimately, again it is difficult to name a decisive winner. Biden based on merits and performance – as polls show was victorious, though it has to be admitted – both candidates received what they needed from that debate and what was essential to improve their image among the undecided to whom this debate was really addressed.

For more on this debate : http://binarychoice.wordpress.com

“doesn’t seem to understand” vs. “you were wrong”

September 26th was a date of the first presidential debate in this campaign. As for every ‘first’ aspect of reality, debate was expected to be one of the most important of all. The expectations at this level however, were not solely a result of a position of this debate within the schedule – what was more important were the issues – monumental both for the American citizens and their economy, America’s standing within the global architecture and international community as a whole. It is obvious that issues at hand – again, economic crisis, foreign policy and national security would attract a great audience domestically and internationally. As a matter of principle, discussion present in the debate was to ascend from campaign-level into an argument-based polemic face to face.

This debate did not seem to meet expectations of its (at least) international audience. It is well known that presidential debates’ sole purpose is to convince voters to vote for given candidates, not introduce new ideas. However, international analysts after viewing this debate may feel slightly uncomfortable. Issues that were discussed were clearly those with immense resonance in American public, others no matter how important to America’s global standing were not elaborated upon – for instance : question of China and relations with NATO and European Union – which are critical [as many analysts highlight] to maintain America’s position in global affairs.

The debate was without a doubt, a repetition of campaign slogans, even within the economic crisis section, which was expected by many to bring some fresh points from both candidates. McCain insisted on ‘cut spending’ strategy, while Obama repeated his ‘help the middle class’. None of the candidates wished to elaborate on which points out of their presidential strategies to abandon to help reinstall the good state of U.S. economy. That however is understandable – this is how votes are lost – and even Jim Lehrer’s question spree did not break any of the two.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security both candidates did not express the majority of their fundamental differences. Most of their dispute was solely concentrated upon Iraq and Afghanistan, question of Russia and that represented something, which in case of foreign policy is inherent – there are issues on which there is simply no discussion for they define what many politicians refer to as national interests.

McCain’s approach to the debate may be asserted very easily – his primary objective being demonstration of experience and simultaneously highlighting inexperience of his adversary. The tools and performance seemed to be very simple – Arizona senator skillfully juggled with the names of states of regions and carefully repeated ‘I’ve been there’ ‘I’ve met with…’, which perhaps represent fabulous knowledge of geography, but not necessarily credibility in foreign policy, however this tactic could persuade few undecided voters.

Obama on the other hand did not seem to intend to demonstrate his experience so radically, it was rather his understanding of global situation as well as the shape of events in areas vital to U.S. national security. He agreed on relatively many issues with McCain, which was picked up by republicans after debate to show his incompetence. His views on challenges facing America seemed to be more progressive, focusing on America’s reputation in the world and the importance of its restoration through educational and diplomatic routes, and of course new technologies, to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Areas where both candidates had a major quarrel were unsurprisingly Iraq, and Iran. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s positions on Iraq are well known from campaign speeches and rallies. McCain defended his strategy with questions of victory and defeat – continued presence, sustaining a surge and withdrawal being correspondent to aforementioned. Despite the political danger this approach is crafting for republican campaign due to the lack of support among the Americans, senator McCain strongly defends the presence of American troops in Iraq and recommends increase in their numbers. Nevertheless, he did not discuss the strategy or a plan, as to how long would America’s presence in that region would remain. This raises important doubts about the reality of victory through presence, which Senator John McCain referred to, for history demonstrates many examples of completely wrong strategies and unplanned military interventions that turned out to be disastrous, war in Iraq being one of them (at least up to now).

Deriving from his statements during the debate, Obama on the other hand did not seem to be influenced in any major part by the vast group of his advisers and political supporters – Brzezinski, Albright, Kennedy and many more, who provide detailed strategies and ideas on how to stand up towards America’s challenges. These ideas could have a decisive impact upon his performance in this section of the debate, if properly cited – that did not occur to McCain’s advantage.

What is important for stabilizing the situation in the Middle East region (a principal challenge to U.S. security and policy overall) is placing a stronger emphasis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where resurgent Al Qaeda and the Taliban are prevailing step by step, not to mention profoundly organized strategy to control Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It is critical to adhere to reality – America’s role within the international community is no longer based on one goal or strategy it should consist of many approaches dealing with different actors – including principal U.S. allies – for instance the European Union. Surprisingly, a desired vision of EU’s involvement and cooperation (both very important to the U.S. security) in the region was omitted both by the organizers and the candidates. America in order to maintain its current position needs to return to diplomacy as a principal element or tool used to project power and influence. Senator McCain’s vision of engaging Iran without considering diplomatic talks is dangerous – both because it is purely an extension of current administration’s failed policies and because it may lead to severe consequences in the region. As proved by Nixon, Carter and Reagan and their administrations, diplomacy and facing the enemies in diplomatic talks never led to the downfall of American leadership nor its reputation. Ironically, one of McCain’s top advisers on foreign policy, Henry Kissinger – who restored diplomatic relations with China during the Mao era, shares the same views. Nevertheless, the question of whether this is only a slogan scoring additional political points or a major policy shift among the republican strategists is yet to be answered.

Unfortunately, the first debate did not precisely evaluate the credentials of respective candidates and neglected many challenges approaching America. Questions and sections of the debate did not allow any of the two to fully address the most important issues affecting the condition of America’s global position. Instead, we have been offered slogan-based polemic, which did not cover these issues efficiently. The remains are even higher expectations for VP showdown, which hopefully will be more prudently prepared.