The AFPAK Channel
Inside the war for central asia Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

The speech

By Steve Coll Share

By Steve Coll

My thoughts on President Obama's Afghanistan speech are up over at Think Tank.

The President gave his generals what they asked for, essentially. He also purchased from his own deeply skeptical party eighteen months of political forbearance. That is the boiled-down news of the speech last night.

As policy, the speech seemed hard-headed, realistic, careful, and in my oft-laundered view it offered the right choice in a difficult situation. As rhetoric and narrative, however, it disappointed. One problem was that the line of Obama’s argument suffered from its embedded and deliberately constructed contradictions. We are going in but we are going out; we are fighting to defend a vital national interest, but only to the extent that we can afford to do so. We must prevail in this struggle, but we must recognize that we have other challenges that are perhaps more important. All that duality does not lend itself to a smooth narrative or an emotional crescendo.

The speech’s first section—justifying the length of the President’s autumn policy review, and blaming his troubles, mutedly but unmistakably, on his predecessor—seemed, in this setting, and given the solemn and forward-looking character of the President’s decision, unnecessarily defensive. At the least, this first passage was out of rhetorical step with the rousing ending, which was by far the best formal section of the writing. There the President summoned his gifts to invoke a vision of national unity and America’s role in the world that was consonant with his inspiring campaign for office. As uplifting as they were, however, those passages actually treated a different subject—they were about the kind of Presidency Obama wished to have, and not very much about his decision to redouble his commitment to the war in Afghanistan. The final section felt a little like the speech the President would have wished to give from start to finish if he had not inherited a deteriorating Afghan war and boxed himself into fighting that war during the election campaign.

 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

SMCI60652

8:17 PM ET

December 2, 2009

What we know

It could be entirely possible that the administration knows full well what the Afghan Taliban is going to do and what their Pakistani backers will think about a tangible 'start date' for withdrawal.

What if the announcement of 2011 is a win-win proposition from both a domestic political standpoint as well as a military strategic standpoint?

Consider this. We start pulling troops out right when the 2012 election cycle is heating up... that buys our boys a year-and-a-half to look like heroes because the Taliban is laying low. We "clear, hold and build" some token projects in the Pashtun heartland to show that the strategy is working. The President can say he's delivered on his promise to bring troops home and looks like a military genius.

All the while we're arming the ANSF to the teeth and fostering trust and unity between key Northern Warlords (or just pay them to get along) so they can withstand a 2012 resurgence. At worst we hope to create a stalemate which will require massive Taliban recruits to be transported out to the front from Kandahar, Helmand, Quetta, FATA and NWFP. But the one thing that's different this time is that our Air force and SOFs are ready to bomb them to hell when they do.

Meanwhile the only way the Taliban can create this push is if Pakistan and Saudi openly embarrass themselves on the world stage by providing trucks, cash and arms like they did in the 90s.

Short of this, the only thing that makes sense to me right now is taking Pakistan's paranoia seriously and doing something about it.