"America remains the 'indispensable
nation,' especially for Europe. Therefore, it is in the best interests of
Europe to take on some of America's responsibilities and allow it more air to
breathe. … America is overstretched - and Barack Obama must try and bring its
financial resources and ambition back into a healthy balance."
The Afghanistan troop
reduction announced by the American President goes further than originally
thought - and further than that advised by his military, particularly ISAF Commander-in-Chief
David Petraeus. Ten thousand U.S. soldiers are to withdraw from the Hindu Kush
by the end of the year, and no less than 33,000 by the summer of next year.
This is a clever domestic move
of political chess by Barack Obama, because it takes from Republicans a
potential campaign issue. That is especially true since all the conservative presidential
candidates have shown unmistakable isolationist tendencies. But what may be politically
wise at home doesn’t necessarily make sense in foreign policy terms.
The crucial question is
whether Obama's retreat jeopardizes progress made over the past year, because
the troop surge and the associated change in strategy has worked - at least in
part. The allies have managed to retake and hold insurgent-controlled areas in
the south of the country. Two years ago the Taliban were on the offensive and threatened
to take over other parts of the country. They already saw themselves as future
victors. This momentum was halted and reversed. Today the Taliban place a
priority on assassinating high-ranking members of the central government,
because they’re no longer capable of controlling larger territories. On the
other hand, ISAF troops have so far failed to completely defeat the Taliban and
secure full sovereignty for Hamid Karzai’s government. The central government
is far from being able to exist on its own. The current balance of power in the
country continues to depend on the substantial commitment of international
troops and donors.
So whether Obama’s withdrawal
plan comes too soon or is too ambitious is something that will have to be assessed
in the years to come. On the other hand, now the government in Kabul as well as
the partly Taliban-friendly Pakistan military know: time is running out. One
who doesn’t want to be overrun by the Taliban must take responsibility and do
his homework. At the same time, Obama’s withdrawal plan plays into the hands of
the Taliban, who know that they just have to hold out long enough to have
another chance.
But as Obama has said:
America will no longer conduct itself based on wishful thinking; but what is
feasible. And this is a credo that extends far beyond the patient in the Hindu
Kush. Because Obama’s speech marked a turning point, not only in Afghanistan
policy but for the ambitions of this major force for global order. The empire
is exhausted from a decade of war, and it wants its foreign policy to coincide with
its shrinking financial resources. “America, it is time for nation-building
here at home,” was the most important sentence in Obama’s speech: Instead of
building other nations, it will now devote itself to strengthen itself from
within to resurrect the economic power that provides the basis for America’s role
as superpower. Obama’s speech is therefore not only a reminder for the Afghan
government to get its own house in order, but also to Europe. The times of
security policy free-riding is over.
American power and global
influence are based largely on the capacity of its military, which secures
maritime routes, protects allies and ensures a regional balance. To fulfill
this role, Americans over past decades have lived with a smaller welfare state
and a larger military than Europe. The Old Continent, however, developed an
exuberant system of redistribution and continually reduced military spending,
trusting that the Americans would pull its chestnuts from the fire - as
happened in the Balkans. Both sides of the Atlantic will have to find a new
balance. Because in light of America's neglected infrastructure and its
enormous debt burden, Americans no longer understand why they should finance 75
percent of NATO’s military expenditures and maintain the bulk of its deployable
troops, even when Europe has more inhabitants than the United States. The
mission in Libya has once again demonstrated this drastic imbalance. Because
here, even the European states with the most ambitious foreign policies, France
and Great Britain, have reached the limits of their abilities and ammunition after
only a few months against a weak opponent. Left to its own devices, this is a Europe
only partly ready for defense - and that will have to change.
At the height of the
transatlantic fight over the Iraq War, French President Jacques Chirac and
Germany Chancellor Gerhard Schröder wished for a multipolar world with a less
powerful America. As the Anglo-Saxon's say: “Be careful what you wish for,”
because a world in which America’s regulatory function disappears will be a less
peaceful one. And it would be one in which Europe would have to defend its
interests with far greater resources or be doomed to irrelevance and a much more
rapid descent. America remains the “indispensable nation,” especially for
Europe, but also for many Asian and Middle Eastern allies. Therefore, it is in
the best interests of Europe to take on some of America's responsibilities and allow
it more air to breathe.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
In other words, it is
therefore wrong for Europeans in their turn to reduce the troops in
Afghanistan. The European share of the mission since the surge was already low.
So those who barely participated in the surge shouldn’t be shouting “here” for
a troop reduction. In regard to Germany's area of responsibility, a reduction
in troop levels would immediately jeopardize the successes that have been achieved.
America is overstretched -
and Barack Obama must try and bring its financial resources and ambition back into
a healthy balance. It's too early for a farewell to the world power, but only
when America recovers its economic strength and confidence will it be capable of
continuing to fulfill its role in the order of the world. And that is in the
interest of all who want to see stable conditions on this globe.
