A less-than-stirring speech before the silent 'long gray line' at West Point
Saturday, December 5, 2009 E-Mail this story Free Headline Alerts
By John Metzler UNITED NATIONS Ñ There was something surrealistic about President Barack ObamaÕs Afghan surge speech at West Point. Amid the majesty and awe of this history-laden military academy, we heard a very lawyerly and politically pedantic address, not about the towering heights of honor, glory and victory but rather a managerial, dour and near emotionless speech about Òreversing the momentumÓ of AfghanistanÕs Taliban Òextremists,Ó and seeking a Òsuccessful conclusionÓ to the Afghan conflict.
So here goes. We send in 30,000 additional troops (far fewer than requested by General Stanley McChrystal) to enter the fray, only then to do the two-step and open the way for troop withdrawals starting in July 2011. The year and a half timeline is less rooted in reality than in wishful political thinking. ItÕs not just about covering the militaryÕs flank but equally the restive left-wing in ObamaÕs own Democratic party.
While the PresidentÕs address traced the conflict to the horrors of 11th September 2001 and the unprovoked terrorist attacks on America which later triggered the Afghan conflict, the word ÒterroristÓ was used sparingly giving way to the watered-down modifier Òextremists.Ó Though rightly citing Òvital national interests,Ó placing the Afghan operation on a transparent timetable, only telegraphs our plans to the Taliban insurgents.
Timeline: is the key, mentioning clock and calendar is not a wise path.
Even as the U.S. spoke of withdrawals, United Nations envoy Kai Eide underscored the need for a long-term commitment from the international community. Stressing that now is not the time to talk about an exit strategy; ÒI think we should talk about transition strategy, which is something completely different.Ó
HereÕs a few issues the main-steam media has not really touched upon;
Why the West Point venue? Gravitas. After playing the ponderous and indecisive Prince Hamlet for three months, a full season while the security situation rapidly deteriorated, Obama did not make a somber address from the White House, seat of civilian power, but from the temple of the warriors, West Point, a place evoking Duty, Honor, Country. But beyond the shadows of the long gray line, and famous Generals such as Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton and Douglas Macarthur, the subliminal message here is if something goes wrong, it is somehow the fault of the military.
The deployment shall expand the American troop commitment over 100,000 joined by 38,000 from forty allies, including Britain, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland.
Much of ObamaÕs address dealt more with objectives than strategy; The surge is probably about getting some Taliban factions to offer a separate peace with the USA. While Washington is well aware of the politically tarnished and corrupt reputation of Hamid KarzaiÕs central government in Kabul, the USA may be willing to work around Karzai and appeal to individual warlords and factions in Afghanistan varied tribal quilt .
Thus getting some Taliban to Ònegotiate Ò will only happen after more military force is first applied.
Amid the political spin of the Afghan surge, there was no mention of the Bush AdministrationÕs successful military surge in Iraq, which Senator Obama opposed.
Drugs. AfghanistanÕs major export is tragically narcotics, a current UN report ÒAddiction, Crime and Insurgency; The Transnational threat of Afghan Opium,Ó presents a somber case that Afghanistan produces 90 percent of global opium. Between 2005-2008, Taliban reaped a windfall profit of between $450 and $600 million in taxing narcotics. Equally Taliban and Al Qaida groups have a lions share of the $1 billion opium market in PakistanÕs porous frontier regions. Thinking ahead, do we woo ÒmoderateÓ Taliban militants from the fight only to see them go into the far more lucrative drug business?
Pakistan is THE major problem; the mountainous land bordering Afghan harbors the very rats nest of terrorists we have long been seeking. The AFPAK strategy Obama spoke of earlier in the year faces its root challenge here; namely the problem of Taliban violence and terrorism spilling over the border into and destabilizing nuclear-armed Pakistan.
As to reaction from NATO allies Ñ BritainÕs conservative Daily Telegraph thundered, ÒBarack Obama has bowed to the pressure of domestic political realities and unveiled not a victory strategy, but an exit strategy.Ó
GermanyÕs left-leaning Der Spiegel stated sarcastically, ÒNever before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech Ñ and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught.Ó It added, ÒObama's magic no longer works.Ó
In Òstruggling against violent extremismÓ and calling on the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces to carry a renewed fight to the Taliban and Al Qaida terrorists in the rugged mountains in Afghanistan, Obama did not even use the word Victory.
The ghosts of the long gray line silently listening at West Point were likely not pleased.