The Art of Compromise

It would be easy to dismiss Barack Obama’s new Afghanistan strategy as a contradictory jumble of lazy compromises. He wanted to be the president of peace but has decided to send in more troops just as his predecessor, George W. Bush, the president of war did. At the same time, he announced that the withdrawal of those troops would begin in July 2011, as if he didn’t really take his promise to “finish the job” seriously. Obama wants to turn over more responsibility to the Afghan government, even though he describes it as corrupt and ineffective. He hasn’t convinced the American people as exemplified by the restrained reaction of his West Point audience. They applauded only five times during the 35-minute speech, remarkably seldom for a much-heralded presidential appearance.

However, that sort of criticism would be too simplistic; it would be a cheap shot. Whoever analyzes the situation and honestly asks, “What would I do in his place?” would be showing more understanding. Obama is making the best of this messy situation. He doesn’t have the luxury of single-handedly determining what, seen in isolation, would be the most optimal solution for Afghanistan. Instead, he has to tailor his plans to America’s financial situation in the midst of a crisis, to the majority opinions in Congress, as well as to the fact that he knows he has no dependable partners in either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

Nevertheless, the criticism leveled at him is just as contradictory. If the Republicans complain that he is sending too few troops and Democrats complain he is sending too many, then maybe he’s doing something right after all. If his allies agree that the situation in the Hindu Kush is in danger of spinning out of control, yet don’t volunteer to help, then they have a more serious credibility problem than Obama.

More soldiers are necessary because the military situation in Afghanistan has been consistently deteriorating. The problems encountered in individual regions need different solutions. In the southeast, along the Pakistani border where the Taliban finds a safe haven, increased action against them is the right answer. In other provinces, cooperation with regional tribal chieftains is the way to go. More U.S. troops are needed for the training of the Afghan police and military; the U.S. Army and NATO forces will not be able to withdraw until the Afghans are capable of defending themselves against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This all costs money; namely, an additional $30 billion a year for the U.S. units alone. These expenses have to be weighed against the increasing American debt and its own domestic priorities. The bottom line is that you can’t argue for billions more in tax dollars for Afghanistan and then say you can’t afford to offer your own citizens healthcare insurance.

It would have been wrong to set a withdrawal date after two or three years of combat on the grounds that the enemy then knows exactly how long it has to hang on. On the other hand, after eight years, it’s perfectly justified because it’s then more important to put pressure on Afghanistan (as well as Pakistan) so that they step up to their own responsibilities.

The U.S. Military Academy was the appropriate venue for this speech because Obama was able to meet, face to face, the young people that he will soon be sending to risk their lives in Afghanistan and explain why their country needs them. Thank God Obama didn’t deliver a jingoistic tirade glorifying war, but rather a pensive assessment in which he enumerated the mistakes made by the Bush administration in neglecting Afghanistan in favor of attacking Iraq for little reason. Also, he thankfully avoided talking about further American sacrifices, which aren’t subjects for adoring applause.

The majority of Americans want to put Afghanistan behind them as quickly as possible, but they also realize that they can’t just cut and run – there is more to do first. Obama is planning a troop surge in preparation for a withdrawal. At one point, however, the president’s words sounded unrealistic; namely, when he said that this war wasn’t only America’s responsibility and he expects more troops and greater efforts from NATO allies. Aside from the British, it’s hard to find anyone attending to his call.

Obama gave a speech that displayed the art of compromise. The question now is whether his European allies will respond with the same level of responsibility.