Obama's Afghan Withdrawal
Must Be 'Some Sort of Joke'
Is there
any reason to believe that American troops will truly begin leaving Afghanistan
in 18 months, as President Obama announced last week? Or, as this article in
China's state-controlled Guangzhou Daily suggests, was this just an
eloquent rhetorical fig leaf to hide the fact that America won't leave anytime soon? Columnist Dong Fangsi offers us his Beijing-approved strategic analysis.
This matter is deeply humorous
and ironic. Under the banner of peace, Obama became U.S. president. With no
real achievements just a few months later, he inexplicably won the Nobel Peace
Prize. Then no sooner had he criticized George W. Bush's “love of war,” he
went him a step further by announcing an increase in troops. As for his
election, while campaigning he promised to withdraw troops within 90 days of
taking office, and withdraw from Iraq completely by 2010. As if they never
really existed, all of these turned out to be like wisps of smoke disappearing
on the horizon.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
Thus, when announcing the troop
surge, Obama said that the withdrawal from Afghanistan would “start” in 2011, which
can only be seen as some sort of a joke. What does “start” actually mean? How
many people will genuinely constitute a withdrawal? These questions require much
more information to answer; while Obama has too much eloquence. This seems like
another of those rhetorical inconsistencies he's made since entering office. When
things come to a head he has the skill to calmly mediate, speaking with perfect
eloquence and without shame.
NATO Secretary
General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said during a visit to Afghanistan in August that
military means alone could not solve the country’s current difficulties. This
had already become the consensus in a growing number of U.S. allies, but Obama has
repeatedly called on the E.U. and other allies to raise their troop levels. But
in the end it was America's only truly steadfast ally, the U.K., which offered a
merely symbolic 500 additional troops. Others, conversely, are considering
withdrawals. With this as a backdrop, it would appear that a U.S. troop reduction
would have been a decision that couldn’t be made. Obama can’t throw away his
“lousy road-side stand,” without pulling out of the country completely.
President
Obama, in perhaps one of the oddest speeches ever
given by a Nobel Peace Prize
Winner, accepts the award in Oslo,
Norway, Dec. 10.
He defended the U.S. right to wage 'just wars.'
Many have compared
the Afghan War with the Vietnam War: the period of fighting has been very long;
the U.S. government has had to redouble its efforts again and again only to
sink into passivity; it's fighting to a loss; the voices of domestic opposition
are growing ever louder; etc. With all of these similarities, it can’t be
helped that people look back, making a mental connection with the period of the
Vietnam War - a bitterly painful one for the U.S. government and people.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
One could say that the Afghan
war has become America’s new Vietnam. Yet in some ways, there are more elements
that in this case are beyond the U.S. president's control. The military has
repeatedly sought reinforcements as day in and day out, the increasingly active
Taliban directly incite confusion that threatens the stability of Pakistan, etc.
This made the decision to increase troop levels hard for Obama to avoid.
Yet the decision also puts
Obama in a perilous position. If everything goes smoothly, he can earn some
political capital with which to win a second term. But if the Afghanistan War
goes down the same path as the Vietnam War, then Obama's decision to send more
troops could lead to the same fate as that of President Lyndon Johnson: a dismal
exit from office with the image of a “loser.”
