Washington, Dec 2 (Inditop.com) If it is possible to own something even while simultaneously disowning it, President Barack Obama did it as he announced his much awaited Afghanistan strategy.
As he took full ownership of a war nearly a year after he reluctantly inherited it, the overarching sentiment of Obama’s new strategy seems to be that he cannot wait to get out of Afghanistan. His enunciation that “the nation that I am most interested in building is our own” was by far the clearest exposition of his foreign policy goals at a time when America is besieged by debilitating economic crises.
His strategy, while favorably answering his military commanders’ request for enough resources, also seeks to reassure his core political constituency of his resolve to begin withdrawal in a specific timeframe. He spoke of a “successful conclusion” to the war but took care not to define what that really meant in recognizable sense.
Contrary to expectations in some quarters, Obama steadfastly stayed away from an open-ended commitment to stay in Afghanistan even as he announced 30,000 more U.S. troops to be deployed early in 2010. In the same breath he also announced July 18, 2011 as the date to begin transferring U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
“There are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort – one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan,” he aid.
“But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended – because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own,” Obama said.
This assertion appears to open possibilities for India to refashion its own approach toward a region in which it has a direct stake. Before the speech there was a perception that Obama would signal a long-term engagement in Afghanistan if only to reassure Pakistan that India may not step in to fill the vacuum. However, his categorical rejection of an open-ended engagement may mean that New Delhi could be expected to shoulder aspects of nation building that the Obama administration is not inclined to.
The president took care to tell both Afghanistan and Pakistan how he sees US relations with them outside of the exigent military involvement.
“I want the Afghan people to understand – America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect – to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron,” Obama said.
His message to Pakistan was equally friendly: “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect, and mutual trust,” he said. “The Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed,” Obama said.
In financial terms the additional troop deployment will cost America $30 billion this year, or roughly a million dollars a soldier per year. It is anybody’s guess whether the threat to the U.S. emanating out of Afghanistan-Pakistan region is so severe and so direct that it is willing to spend such large sums without really communicating what a successful conclusion of that effort would look like.
The US would have spent close to $300 billion by the time it begins its proposed withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in July, 2011. The return on investment of this magnitude is likely to remain questionable at best.
