Obama’s Litmus Test
Published in De Volkskrant
(Netherlands) on 27 November 2009
by Paul Brill (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 27 November 2009
by Paul Brill (link to original)
Translated from
by Dorian de Wind.
Edited by Laura Berlinsky-Schine.
Despite verbal expressions of support for the American president, Barack Obama’s requests for more troops in Afghanistan have been met with minute enthusiasm that is only diminishing.
Can someone circumvent or alleviate certain problems in the world by simply redefining them? It seems some people believe it is indeed possible.
Last weekend, I attended a major international security conference at the Canadian port of Halifax. All the hot issues were discussed: the future of NATO, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, the Middle East, maritime piracy, and nuclear disarmament.
Conspicuous
During a panel discussion on the highly unstable situation in Pakistan, the editor of an English-language Pakistani newspaper made a conspicuous attempt at putting a positive spin on the difficult situation in his country. He urged the West, and particularly the United States, to no longer consider the Pakistani army part of the problem, but rather part of the solution.
To no longer see something or someone as part of the problem, but as part of the solution, is a concept that is often used nowadays. There is a certain power of seduction to it: it is always nicer to deal with a solution than with a problem.
However, in the case of Pakistan, such a statement serves mainly as an invocation. For while it is obviously important to keep an open mind towards the interests and views of the Pakistani military, the fact that the military is a huge obstacle in attempts to secure stable relationships in the country and the region has not become any less significant.
Obsession
A crucial problem in Pakistan is the army's obsession with India. This obsession is why the army commanders have repeatedly made deals with the jihadists in the turbulent northwestern part of the country, for a serious military campaign against insurgents would only divert attention from the confrontation with the main enemy- India. Additionally, the latest offensive in Waziristan, where a growing power struggle is taking place among the fundamentalist warring groups, lacks the concentrated effort that is required to actually succeed against these factions.
Moreover, terrorist groups which have it in for Indian targets and the Taliban in Afghanistan are receiving covert aid from dark military circles because Afghanistan is mainly seen as a side card in the power struggle with India.
If this mentality, which is once again coupled with senseless anti-Americanism—although the United States has, in recent years, stuffed Pakistan full with money and weapons—does not change, one can passionately proclaim that the Pakistan army must be made part of the solution, but actually making the army part of the solution will not succeed.
The new German Defense Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, an otherwise interesting figure of whom we will hear more in the near future, is displaying a similar tendency to change reality by giving it a different name.
During a debate on transatlantic relations, he cried out: "We must stop labeling the mission in Afghanistan as a litmus test for NATO."
Litmus Test
As a reminder, it was former Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who was the first to use the term litmus test in reference to Afghanistan five years ago. In retrospect, perhaps that was not a wise move. But the fact that the term stuck and was adopted by many is not due to De Hoop Scheffer putting it into circulation, but simply because of a military alliance that, for the first time, undertook a major combat operation outside its own territory with a force of about 100 thousand men, putting its standing and reputation at stake. This reality could still be dismissed when the illusion that Afghanistan was all about “nation building” reigned, but that time has passed.
The war in Afghanistan is a litmus test for NATO and now also for the leadership of Barack Obama. After three months of deliberation, a process that has lasted much too long and, as such, has sown doubts about the will and decisiveness of the president, Obama will deliver a televised announcement on Tuesday revealing how he thinks he will bring "his" war of necessity to a successful end.
Support
Obama will likely aim to strengthen the U.S. forces with 30,000 men. Also, because of the need for political backing, the Europeans will have to provide 10,000 additional troops.
The latter is an understandable U.S. desire, but it is unlikely that Europe will contribute so many troops. This lack of support has been the big disappointment since Obama took office: as the anti-Bush, it was expected that he could make a much greater appeal to NATO allies, but that turns out to hardly be the case.
In spite of their verbal expressions of support, most European countries already had very little appetite for involvement in Afghanistan when the mission was going relatively smoothly.
Now that the situation has become grimmer and more difficult, that appetite has only decreased. "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," is an American expression. It will never be a European motto.
Can someone circumvent or alleviate certain problems in the world by simply redefining them? It seems some people believe it is indeed possible.
Last weekend, I attended a major international security conference at the Canadian port of Halifax. All the hot issues were discussed: the future of NATO, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, the Middle East, maritime piracy, and nuclear disarmament.
Conspicuous
During a panel discussion on the highly unstable situation in Pakistan, the editor of an English-language Pakistani newspaper made a conspicuous attempt at putting a positive spin on the difficult situation in his country. He urged the West, and particularly the United States, to no longer consider the Pakistani army part of the problem, but rather part of the solution.
To no longer see something or someone as part of the problem, but as part of the solution, is a concept that is often used nowadays. There is a certain power of seduction to it: it is always nicer to deal with a solution than with a problem.
However, in the case of Pakistan, such a statement serves mainly as an invocation. For while it is obviously important to keep an open mind towards the interests and views of the Pakistani military, the fact that the military is a huge obstacle in attempts to secure stable relationships in the country and the region has not become any less significant.
Obsession
A crucial problem in Pakistan is the army's obsession with India. This obsession is why the army commanders have repeatedly made deals with the jihadists in the turbulent northwestern part of the country, for a serious military campaign against insurgents would only divert attention from the confrontation with the main enemy- India. Additionally, the latest offensive in Waziristan, where a growing power struggle is taking place among the fundamentalist warring groups, lacks the concentrated effort that is required to actually succeed against these factions.
Moreover, terrorist groups which have it in for Indian targets and the Taliban in Afghanistan are receiving covert aid from dark military circles because Afghanistan is mainly seen as a side card in the power struggle with India.
If this mentality, which is once again coupled with senseless anti-Americanism—although the United States has, in recent years, stuffed Pakistan full with money and weapons—does not change, one can passionately proclaim that the Pakistan army must be made part of the solution, but actually making the army part of the solution will not succeed.
The new German Defense Minister, Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, an otherwise interesting figure of whom we will hear more in the near future, is displaying a similar tendency to change reality by giving it a different name.
During a debate on transatlantic relations, he cried out: "We must stop labeling the mission in Afghanistan as a litmus test for NATO."
Litmus Test
As a reminder, it was former Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who was the first to use the term litmus test in reference to Afghanistan five years ago. In retrospect, perhaps that was not a wise move. But the fact that the term stuck and was adopted by many is not due to De Hoop Scheffer putting it into circulation, but simply because of a military alliance that, for the first time, undertook a major combat operation outside its own territory with a force of about 100 thousand men, putting its standing and reputation at stake. This reality could still be dismissed when the illusion that Afghanistan was all about “nation building” reigned, but that time has passed.
The war in Afghanistan is a litmus test for NATO and now also for the leadership of Barack Obama. After three months of deliberation, a process that has lasted much too long and, as such, has sown doubts about the will and decisiveness of the president, Obama will deliver a televised announcement on Tuesday revealing how he thinks he will bring "his" war of necessity to a successful end.
Support
Obama will likely aim to strengthen the U.S. forces with 30,000 men. Also, because of the need for political backing, the Europeans will have to provide 10,000 additional troops.
The latter is an understandable U.S. desire, but it is unlikely that Europe will contribute so many troops. This lack of support has been the big disappointment since Obama took office: as the anti-Bush, it was expected that he could make a much greater appeal to NATO allies, but that turns out to hardly be the case.
In spite of their verbal expressions of support, most European countries already had very little appetite for involvement in Afghanistan when the mission was going relatively smoothly.
Now that the situation has become grimmer and more difficult, that appetite has only decreased. "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," is an American expression. It will never be a European motto.
Next article![]( "Obama in China")
