Afghanistan (or Madrid), There Is No Money
Published in El Mundo
(Spain) on 23 June 2011
by No author given (link to original)
The glass is either half full or half empty. The report of the International Monetary Fund is a good example. It says that Spain has taken steps in the right direction, but there is much left to be done on important issues and requires courage, not doubts. The Finance Minister has seen the rose-colored side and appears to be very pleased. The international press, however, is less optimistic. The headlines are not exactly flattering: "The IMF publishes an alarming report about the Spanish economy" (Le Monde), "The IMF warns Spain of possible setbacks" (Financial Times), "Spain a target of the Monetary Fund" (Le Figaro).
It is obvious that foreign investors and markets, in short, do not share the same impression as our Minister, and that impression is the base of confidence. In the United States, Obama’s decision to begin the withdrawal from Afghanistan invokes similar feelings. The president believes that things in that country have notably improved and it is time to reduce the drain on the United States. Others contend that the situation continues to be a quagmire, that the Taliban is a greater threat than five years ago, and conclude that a substantial and rapid withdrawal will lead to losing the ten-year struggle for peace.
That is what the United States is dealing with in the country. One decade and the economic cost has been astronomical. This year the calculated cost will increase by $120 billion, too much for its economy. Obama inherited two wars from Bush. One was inevitable, in Afghanistan, from where the attacks on the Twin Towers were launched. The other was the choice of his predecessor, the war in Iraq. While assuming the presidency, Obama held that the war of choice, the voluntary one, had distracted attention away from the other and diverted valuable resources. He inferred that the presence in Iraq had to be reduced and that attention should be concentrated on the inevitable. However, in 2009, he took a decisive step. As had happened to Bush in Iraq, Obama’s military advisers convinced him that if he wanted to win it was necessary to temporarily increase the military presence in Afghanistan. Obama relented and signed the “increase.”
By sending 30,000 new troops the American contingent reached a total of 102,000. The president’s decision would convert this inevitable war into one of choice. Opinion is divided. Vice President Biden and Richard Holbrooke, an old friend of mine from the U.N. and diplomat in charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan, were against the surge. They argued it was not the way to crush the Taliban and that it sent the wrong message to the Asian states. The military, with the Secretary of Defense, the respected Gates, and Hillary Clinton judged the increase in troops as essential.
The disparity is repeated now as Obama announces that in the following months he will withdraw 10,000 soldiers and a similar amount at a later date. The president sees the glass half full and, fortified by the elimination of bin Laden, and benefits from public opinion: 47 percent of Americans believe that the war is being won (an increase of 16 percent), 46 percent say it is not (a decrease of 20 percent). The Democratic voter is more or less in line with the president. The top military officials, including General Petraeus, architect of the improved situation in Iraq and the next director of the CIA and others see it as risky.
Prominent Republican leaders such as Mike Rogers believe the president is playing internal politics. Although Obama should find it ideologically uncomfortable to be involved in three conflicts, not forgetting the one in Libya, the economy is what inspired his decision yesterday. It’s certain that the United States has lost 1,600 lives in Afghanistan (in a similar period the Soviet Union had 15,000 fatalities) but the president leads one to believe that the American economy does not allow this colossal outlay. The cost of the Afghan campaign has increased by 50 percent from 2009 to 2010. The cost of the two Asian wars has increased over the decade to total one trillion, yes a trillion, dollars. Obama said in his speech last night that the United States should concentrate on reconstructing the United States.
The economic crisis imposes its reality EVEN on U.S. foreign policy. Like in other times of world history, we know how wars begin but no resources, not even those of the United States, are infinite, and they end up altering the course of war. The reductive example of Washington will be followed, since money obliges, by other governments, among them ours.
It is obvious that foreign investors and markets, in short, do not share the same impression as our Minister, and that impression is the base of confidence. In the United States, Obama’s decision to begin the withdrawal from Afghanistan invokes similar feelings. The president believes that things in that country have notably improved and it is time to reduce the drain on the United States. Others contend that the situation continues to be a quagmire, that the Taliban is a greater threat than five years ago, and conclude that a substantial and rapid withdrawal will lead to losing the ten-year struggle for peace.
That is what the United States is dealing with in the country. One decade and the economic cost has been astronomical. This year the calculated cost will increase by $120 billion, too much for its economy. Obama inherited two wars from Bush. One was inevitable, in Afghanistan, from where the attacks on the Twin Towers were launched. The other was the choice of his predecessor, the war in Iraq. While assuming the presidency, Obama held that the war of choice, the voluntary one, had distracted attention away from the other and diverted valuable resources. He inferred that the presence in Iraq had to be reduced and that attention should be concentrated on the inevitable. However, in 2009, he took a decisive step. As had happened to Bush in Iraq, Obama’s military advisers convinced him that if he wanted to win it was necessary to temporarily increase the military presence in Afghanistan. Obama relented and signed the “increase.”
By sending 30,000 new troops the American contingent reached a total of 102,000. The president’s decision would convert this inevitable war into one of choice. Opinion is divided. Vice President Biden and Richard Holbrooke, an old friend of mine from the U.N. and diplomat in charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan, were against the surge. They argued it was not the way to crush the Taliban and that it sent the wrong message to the Asian states. The military, with the Secretary of Defense, the respected Gates, and Hillary Clinton judged the increase in troops as essential.
The disparity is repeated now as Obama announces that in the following months he will withdraw 10,000 soldiers and a similar amount at a later date. The president sees the glass half full and, fortified by the elimination of bin Laden, and benefits from public opinion: 47 percent of Americans believe that the war is being won (an increase of 16 percent), 46 percent say it is not (a decrease of 20 percent). The Democratic voter is more or less in line with the president. The top military officials, including General Petraeus, architect of the improved situation in Iraq and the next director of the CIA and others see it as risky.
Prominent Republican leaders such as Mike Rogers believe the president is playing internal politics. Although Obama should find it ideologically uncomfortable to be involved in three conflicts, not forgetting the one in Libya, the economy is what inspired his decision yesterday. It’s certain that the United States has lost 1,600 lives in Afghanistan (in a similar period the Soviet Union had 15,000 fatalities) but the president leads one to believe that the American economy does not allow this colossal outlay. The cost of the Afghan campaign has increased by 50 percent from 2009 to 2010. The cost of the two Asian wars has increased over the decade to total one trillion, yes a trillion, dollars. Obama said in his speech last night that the United States should concentrate on reconstructing the United States.
The economic crisis imposes its reality EVEN on U.S. foreign policy. Like in other times of world history, we know how wars begin but no resources, not even those of the United States, are infinite, and they end up altering the course of war. The reductive example of Washington will be followed, since money obliges, by other governments, among them ours.