Edited by Joanne Hanrahan
The Surge in Afghanistan: Baffled at How to Deter Terrorism
President Obama has unveiled his new strategy in Afghanistan. It is an exit strategy that confronts head-on the financial strictures that the United States finds itself in, but is it really able to brush away the latent fear of terrorism that has spread to every corner of the world?
Obama’s speech was remarkable for its frank statement of the financial difficulties the United States has run up
against, the limits on U.S. involvement in rebuilding Afghanistan, and the urgency of nuclear non-proliferation.
“The nation I’m most interested in building is our own,” Obama said. “Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military.” The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost nearly a trillion dollars, and this surge will require an additional $30 billion. Obama’s reference to the United States’ tight budget was effectively a declaration that the country neither wants nor can afford an endless military presence.
He also emphasized the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. “We know that al-Qaida and other extremists seek nuclear weapons.” This highlights the seriousness of the threat posed by the nuclear weapons belonging to Pakistan (where many terrorists are believed to lurk).
Amid this reality, Obama defined the Afghan war’s goal as “disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida” and laid out a troop surge of 30,000 men and a withdrawal beginning in 2011. By that time, he wants to firm up Afghanistan’s security forces and secure its capacity to administer itself. However, he cannot write off corruption, the illegal drug trade, and popular Afghan distrust of the Karzai administration. The cooperation of the United Nations and the international community is indispensable.
While Japan has announced $5 billion in funds—and has provided for civilian aid including occupational training for insurrectionist Taliban forces—this aid is predicated on stability being promoted on the ground.
This new strategy in Afghanistan depends on whether Islamic fundamentalists succeed in isolating themselves, as well as whether there will be a “dialogue with Islam,” on which Middle East peace depends. However, both are difficult problems that will take time.
The recent shooting of fellow officers by a military doctor of Arab descent on a Texas base probably influenced Obama’s decision to speak before a military academy. The incident symbolizes the deep wound inflicted on American society by the eight-year-long Afghan war.
A withdrawal would be labeled a retreat by extremists and would only invigorate terrorist organizations. Can a stable order be established that is not in danger of relapsing into chaos? Time is running out.
Obama’s speech was remarkable for its frank statement of the financial difficulties the United States has run up
against, the limits on U.S. involvement in rebuilding Afghanistan, and the urgency of nuclear non-proliferation.
“The nation I’m most interested in building is our own,” Obama said. “Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military.” The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost nearly a trillion dollars, and this surge will require an additional $30 billion. Obama’s reference to the United States’ tight budget was effectively a declaration that the country neither wants nor can afford an endless military presence.
He also emphasized the danger of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. “We know that al-Qaida and other extremists seek nuclear weapons.” This highlights the seriousness of the threat posed by the nuclear weapons belonging to Pakistan (where many terrorists are believed to lurk).
Amid this reality, Obama defined the Afghan war’s goal as “disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida” and laid out a troop surge of 30,000 men and a withdrawal beginning in 2011. By that time, he wants to firm up Afghanistan’s security forces and secure its capacity to administer itself. However, he cannot write off corruption, the illegal drug trade, and popular Afghan distrust of the Karzai administration. The cooperation of the United Nations and the international community is indispensable.
While Japan has announced $5 billion in funds—and has provided for civilian aid including occupational training for insurrectionist Taliban forces—this aid is predicated on stability being promoted on the ground.
This new strategy in Afghanistan depends on whether Islamic fundamentalists succeed in isolating themselves, as well as whether there will be a “dialogue with Islam,” on which Middle East peace depends. However, both are difficult problems that will take time.
The recent shooting of fellow officers by a military doctor of Arab descent on a Texas base probably influenced Obama’s decision to speak before a military academy. The incident symbolizes the deep wound inflicted on American society by the eight-year-long Afghan war.
A withdrawal would be labeled a retreat by extremists and would only invigorate terrorist organizations. Can a stable order be established that is not in danger of relapsing into chaos? Time is running out.