Streets for Baltimore, Not War in Kandahar

Obama intends to withdraw one-third of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the near future. That will save enough to start funding the America’s rebuilding.

His advisers had recommended a far slower draw down, but Obama has announced to the nation that almost all U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

He intends to bring 10,000 troops home by the end of this year, to be followed by another 23,000 by September 2012. By then, Obama will have withdrawn a good one-third of all troops stationed in Afghanistan within a one-year period. The President made this decision against the advice of his generals, his Secretary of State and his departing Secretary of Defense.

It was just in December 2009 that he ramped up troop strength there by one-third, and now he will draw the level down by the same number. His advisers fear that the gains made by the troop surge could now easily be lost. They say the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, formerly controlled by the Taliban, have since been liberated and pacified, but that a reduction of troops might tempt the Taliban out of hiding.

A surprising hidden message

But Obama has drastically cut back American plans for the Hindu Kush. There is no more talk of nation building and generally peaceful conditions. The talk now is about defeating and eliminating terrorism, goals many think have already been achieved, and not just because of the death of Osama bin Laden.

What was surprising wasn’t the announcement of the troop reduction, but rather the hidden message heralding a paradigm shift that affects not only America but also its allies and client states.

That message is: Attention! The United States cannot afford any more long-range wars. Especially not if they aren’t forced on us from outside and don’t threaten our security or immediate interests.

The message further says: Dear friends, you’re going to have to provide more for your own and your neighbor’s security from here on out. America can no longer shoulder the human, social and financial costs of fighting a war alone. Especially not when the nation can no longer afford to fight such wars without borrowing money from nations like China.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the United States $1.3 trillion. The war in Afghanistan alone eats up $120 billion annually. America’s mountain of debt has since climbed to a dizzying $14 trillion.

No wonder Americans have had enough of these wars. This opinion shift is also bipartisan: Republicans, who never saw a war they didn’t like under George W. Bush, are now yelling for a retreat from Afghanistan and aren’t very enthusiastic about America’s involvement in Libya, either.

That has also affected the presidential candidates. Some are setting a tone that indicates they would like to see America’s global military engagement drastically reduced. Some of them are admitted isolationists, while others cite the emergency of America’s needy financial conditions.

John McCain, conservative candidate for the presidency in 2008 and advocate for the omnipresence of American military might globally, is fighting a losing battle these days. That’s how fast things can change.

And recently, America’s mayors have been getting involved in foreign and defense policy for the first time since the end of the Vietnam War. At their national meeting, they passed a resolution calling for the United States to build streets in Baltimore rather than in Kandahar, and to rebuild America instead of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even before Obama decided on the temporary troop surge in 2009, he warned his countrymen not to overextend themselves with wars. Faced with rusting bridges, decaying schools and aging airports, he demanded that nation building begin at home.

In view of 14 million unemployed, hardly anyone would disagree with him, especially not a year and a half before the next presidential election.