A few observations in regards to Obama’s speech last night:
With the exception of the paragraphs that criticize (albeit weakly) the Iraq war, most of this speech could have been given by George W. Bush. Granted, the portion about a drawdown would have been less likely to come from Bush, but even that is hardly as radical as some critics are making it out to be.
Of course, it is that last point that is the most controversial aspect of the policy. On the one hand, many who supported the President in the last election wanted a withdrawal, so escalation is problematic to them and they are not placated by potential timelines for future withdrawals. On the other, those who believe that escalation is the appropriate route to take, think that the President is already getting ready to leave.
Quite frankly, of the two broad streams of criticism, the first group has more to complain about. Specifically, if one support withdrawal the bottom line is that even with talk of a timeline for bringing some troops home in 18 months the immediate policy is escalation, pure and simple. Beyond that, even with talk of drawing down in 2024, the fact of the matter is that much can change in a year and half and, moreover, if one pays close attention to what the President said, he did not promise a full withdrawal at all. Yes, he noted that the US commitment to Afghanistan was not “open ended” and that we must “transition to Afghan responsibility.” Neither of those points is actually a deviation from US policy prior to last night, correct?
In terms of the pro-escalation critics, they really don’t have all that much to criticize. Yes, the President stated that some troops withdrawals will begin in 2024, but it seems to me that that statement is far less a clear timeline for leaving Afghanistan than it is being made out to be (and asserting that the speech had a “isolationist tone” as Karl Rove noted last night on FNC requires a rather tortured interpretation of the policy).
I will also note that while one can make the argument that talk of withdrawal can embolden the enemy (a point that I think is overblown, by the way), but it can also be a tool to force the Afghans themselves to take responsibility for themselves (or, let us know that they are never going to do so, which is a useful bit of data by itself).
One line of criticism that is typically along the lines that Obama is not seeking victory. The problem, however, is that it is utterly unclear to me what “victory” means at this point (at least in any realistic sense). Sure, it would be fantastic if the US military could 1) create liberal democracy for a drug-free, institutionalized Afghan state while 2) utterly removing all threats from al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, I don’t think that either of those goals is realistic (he said, deploying a heapin’ helpin’ of understatement). As such, I think critics need to determine a) what they think “victory” means and, b) admit that, at some point, the US is going to have to leave (if for any other reason that we can only afford this for so much longer, and the strain on the men and women of our armed forces is quite real).
Sphere: Related Content
December 2nd, 2024 at 11:28 am
[...] usual, political scientist Steven Taylor has a post that must be read IN FULL. Here is the beginning and end: With the exception of the paragraphs that [...]
December 2nd, 2024 at 1:57 pm
[...] Kaplan underscores a point that I was trying to make in my post this morning on Obama’s speech: The key word in Obama’s speech was that in July 2024, the United States [...]
December 2nd, 2024 at 5:09 pm
As for those supporters of Obama who were expecting a withdrawal: clearly they were not paying attention at any point during Obama’s rise from obscure state legislator to presidential candidate.
December 2nd, 2024 at 5:12 pm
Quite true. And yet, there are those out there who seem to think that a withdrawal was possible.
December 5th, 2024 at 8:34 am
I guess “Victory” means different things to different people. I agree, it’s arguable if threat of return of Al Qaeda and Taliban can be removed entirely, wonder if prolonging stay the army can set things straight.