On Dec. 1 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a speech at West Point that addressed the position of the United States of America regarding the war in Afghanistan and outlined the course that needs to be taken. Obama also mentioned how it is that we find ourselves fighting there by invoking the events that unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001. But, the focus was to garner support for the plan that he intends to implement as Commander-in-Chief.
Obama said, “In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and although it was marred by fraud, that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution. Our new commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: “The status quo is not sustainable.” While the Afghan election is cited as a marker of success against the Taliban, it really is not accurate when looking at Afghanistan’s political climate. The Taliban still utilized tactics of intimidation against voters who wanted to exercise their right to vote. And violence did prevail. The alleged massive election fraud led to a post-election fallout, despite President Hamid Karzai’s declarations that he was victorious in the race. Karzai’s chief opposition, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah dropped out the weekend prior to when the run-off election was set to occur. The election in Afghanistan was logistically dysfunctional and it sets a precedent that, from the top down, corruption is premisable. It was not a successful election by any parametrized definition. The reality is that the government of Afghanistan is in its infancy and not fully developed. Obama addressed the necessity for more combat boots on the ground. “I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. “These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. I do not make this decision lightly. We have been at war now for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.” Obama continued,“We will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months. They’ll increase our ability to train competent
Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.” The cut and run of this strategy is that strategically it just doesn’t cut it. Only one of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces is currently considered to be secure and that is given that we have had troops deployed in the nation since 2001. This escalation in troops is akin to the secret military escalation that was done by President Richard Nixon in the 1970’s in that the means of sending more armed forces will hypothetically led to a rapid success by proxy. In theory, this type of immersion of forces contributes to a drain of resources that, as it is, we can not afford to waste. For Nixon, Vietnam was about peace without victory, but for the Obama administration, the Afghan strategy is essentially victory without peace. However, the financial cost lays a heavier burden on the American people, who are already in economic peril. The estimated cost for the conflict in Afghanistan is at $30 billion this year. Obama said, “For unlike, the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for what we continue to fight for is a better future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.” The Obama administration’s strategy in Afghanistan reeks of the undertones of nation-building a nation that has its fair share of additional problems, due to our prolonged military presence. Afghanistan bears a faint resemblence to the Vietnamese conflict. And some of the analysis of that war can be cross-applied to this one. American foreign policy rests on the concept of domestic tranquility. It is the ideal that we must contain any system that is not a form of free market capitalism democracy and roll back such systems. Domestic tranquilty was inherently backed through the Eisenhower Doctorine, which established that the West will support any nation that supports us and our core belief system. This later went on to become the foundation for N.A.T.O. Obama said, “This is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributionsfrom our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility what’s at stake is the security of our Allies and the common security of the world.” Obama unlike his predecessor is notorious for being a uniter as oppossed to a divider. And his Tuesday night address was an attempt to be a means of appeasement to all sides. Fourteen Republicans in the House of Representatives wrote, “For over two months you have been engaged in a strategy review that has left the country, our military, and allies uncertain about your commitment to the war in Afghanistan and unsure about your will to do what is necessary to win this conflict. Worse, we fear the process has emboldened our enemies. It is long overdue for our military to be in the execution stage of the strategy instead of the evaluation phase. Now is the time where the country needs your leadership.” Obama concluded by utilizing the soaring prose of hope and unity that he is famous for. The idea that he serves us and our united national interest. Obama said, “Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.” Eighteen months with 30,000 new troops is a starting point. It is not a solution to a regional international quandary that needs to be addressed with a greater perview of scope and vision.
By MANIKA CASTERLINE
Opinions editor