America, the Exhausted Empire

The Afghanistan troop reductions announced by President Obama go further than expected — and further than his military experts such as ISAF commander David Petraeus advised. Ten thousand soldiers will be withdrawn from the Hindu Kush by year’s end, with a total drawdown of 33,000 soldiers by the summer of 2012.

It is a clever domestic political move by Obama, since with it he takes a potential campaign issue away from the Republicans. All the conservative contenders for the presidency have thus far exhibited decidedly isolationist tendencies. But what is politically wise for domestic policy does not necessarily have to make sense in foreign policy.

The decisive question is whether the tactical gains made over the past year will be endangered by such a withdrawal. The troop surge and the accompanying strategy shift have, in fact, worked. The allies have been able to win back rebel-controlled areas in the southern part of Afghanistan and to maintain control over them. Two years ago, the Taliban was on the offensive threatening to take control of other areas of the country and even predicting their eventual victory. This direction was halted and reversed.

The Taliban has since begun assassinating high-ranking members of the central government because they are no longer in a position to take control of sizeable territories. On the other hand, ISAF forces have not been able to completely defeat the Taliban and establish full sovereignty of Hamid Karzai’s government over Afghanistan. The central government is also far from surviving on its own. The current balance in the country is still dependent on the active engagement of international troops and outside financial support.

Whether Obama’s withdrawal plan is premature and overly ambitious will remain an open question for a few years. On the other hand, the ruling government knows, as do those Taliban allied with the Pakistani military, that time is running out. Whoever wants to avoid being overrun by the Taliban has to assume responsibility and do his homework. At the same time, Obama’s plan plays directly in the Taliban’s hands; they know they only have to hold out long enough to get another chance.

But as Obama said, America will no longer be based on what it wants, but on what is possible. It is a creed that applies far beyond the Hindu Kush and to others as well. Obama’s speech marks not only a change in policy toward Afghanistan, but also in the ambitions of the country most important to global order. The empire is exhausted by a decade of constant war and it wants to scale back its foreign involvement in the face of dwindling financial resources. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home,” was the most significant sentence in his address: Instead of rebuilding other countries, it’s time to rebuild U.S. economic strength; that is the basis for America’s role as a global power. Obama’s speech is therefore not only a warning to the Afghan government to get its own house in order, but it applies to Europe as well. The time of the national security free ride is rapidly coming to an end.

America’s power and worldwide influence depend largely on its military capacity to protect sea routes, support its allies and maintain regional balances. To accomplish this role over the past decade, America has reduced social services and expanded military capabilities to a far greater extent than has Europe. The old continent, on the other hand, built an over-the-top wealth-redistribution system while cutting back on military outlays, trusting that U.S. security policy would pull everyone else’s chestnuts out of the fire as it did in the Balkans.

Both sides of the Atlantic must now find a new balance. In view of a crumbling American infrastructure and an enormous accumulation of debt, Americans no longer understand why they must pay 75 percent of NATO’s costs and supply the majority of troops to foreign lands when Europe has a larger population.

The Libyan mission emphatically emphasized that imbalance once again. The European nations with the most ambitious foreign policies, i.e. France and Great Britain, have already reached the limit of their capabilities and are running out of ammunition after just a few months against a far weaker enemy. The current Europe is only able to fight its own battles on a limited scale — and that will have to change.

In the heyday of trans-Atlantic wrangling over the Iraq war, France’s President Chirac and Germany’s Chancellor Schröder wanted a multipolar world with a less powerful United States. As the old saying goes, “Be careful what you wish for.” A world in which American oversight influence is on the decline will be a far less friendly place. And it will be a place where Europe will have to either pay a steeper price to protect its interests or risk a precipitous decline and relegation to insignificance.

For many Asian and Middle Eastern countries, but especially for Europe, the United States remains the “indispensable nation.” That is why it is in Europe’s best interests to share the burden with America in order to give it some much-needed breathing space.

That is also why it is wrong for the Europeans to reduce troop strength in Afghanistan when America does so. Europe’s share of the burden since the troop surge is already minuscule. Those who did not participate in sending more troops into Afghanistan have no business being first in line to participate in pulling troops out. In particular, the German areas of responsibility in Afghanistan would see hard-fought gains immediately put once again at risk.

America is stretched to the limit and Obama has to find a way to bring American ambitions and financial capabilities back into balance. It is too early for the United States to exit the stage, but it will only be able to play its role as global peacekeeper if it regains its economic strength and confidence. That is why America’s recovery is in the best interests of everyone who values global stability.