Obama’s Afghan Speech Likely to Disappoint

Obama’s Afghan Speech Likely to Disappoint

Obama’s Afghan Speech Likely to Disappoint

Even the Republicans want to get out, so why is Obama going so slowly on the drawdown?

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

I’m willing to let Jon Huntsman, President Obama’s former ambassador to China and a Republican presidential candidate, have a guest op-ed of sorts concerning the president’s speech tonight on Afghanistan, where he’s likely to withdraw a paltry 5,000 troops, 5,000 more by the end of the year and up to 20,000 more by the fall of 2012. Calling Obama “a little slow and a little cautious,” Huntsman said:

"I think that we can probably be more aggressive. We’ve been at this for nine years and fifty days. We put Karzai in power, we’ve had democratic elections…. We’ve routed the Taliban, we’ve dismantled Al Qaeda. What we need now is a healthy dose of nation-building here at home.… When you look at one out of every six Defense Department dollars going in support of what we’re doing in Afghanistan, I think over the next year, I think there is room to draw down more.”

That might not be enough to win Huntsman any Nobel Peace Prizes, but it’s better than what Obama seems poised to do. The rationale for the excessive caution at the White House is supposed to be that were Obama to get out of Afghanistan quickly, he’d open himself up to an alliance between the military and the Republicans. But it seems the Republicans are willing to be more antiwar than the president they oppose, and even Mitt Romney and other leading GOP candidates are joining the get-out-of-Afghanistan bandwagon. Viewed in that context, Obama’s seeming inability to follow the lead of his own base, Democrats in Congress, and the growing majority of Americans who’ve decided that the war isn’t worth fighting is perplexing, distressing and disappointing.

We’ll wait to see what Obama announces tonight, and how he explains America’s mission-less mission in Afghanistan. Reportedly, Obama had hoped that the talks with the Taliban in Qatar and Germany—and, earlier, in Saudi Arabia—would have allowed him to emphasize the idea of a political solution, but if he thought that a deal with the Taliban could have been in sight this quickly, then he’s delusional. At the very least, when Obama speaks to the nation, he’ll have to explain to Americans that the Taliban, an organization that the United States has been demonizing since the 1990s, will be part of the solution. So far, although outgoing (finally!) Secretary of Defense Gates confirmed last weekend that the United States is indeed talking to the Taliban, the administration has done little or nothing to prepare US public opinion for a deal with Mullah Omar and Co. When I mentioned that recently to Doug Lute, the general who is Obama’s chief adviser on Afghanistan, he agreed. “We have a lot of work to do,” he told me. We’ll see how much work Obama does tonight on that score.

The speech tonight isn’t the end, only the beginning of the end—and antiwar forces will have a lot of work to do, into 2012 and beyond, to make sure this absurd adventure in central Asia is put out of its misery. Still, it’s more than worrisome that a senior Obama administration official told the Washington Post earlier this week, in connection with tonight’s speech, “We don’t see this as a major inflection point.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x