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.