Obama's policies in Afghanistan are dictated by the same logic that trapped America in Vietnam
Barack Obama has announced that he intends to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan by 2012. Toby Harnden, the Telegraph’s US Editor, reported that this is an act of “triangulation and political calculation rather than military judgment”. And it is not an isolated incident. To students of US foreign policy, it might seem eerily similar to the decisions that President Lyndon Johnson took in Vietnam. It is another instance of military policy being dictated by electoral logic.
When Barack Obama came out against the Iraq War in the 2008 elections cycle, it was convenient to simultaneously commit himself to bringing peace and liberty to Afghanistan. He didn’t want to look cowardly or out of step with the War on Terror zeitgeist. So the candidate borrowed John Kerry’s narrative that Iraq was unwinnable but Afghanistan was a sure bet. That way Obama could satisfy the peacenik grassroots while convincing independents that he was strong on defence.
Johnson made a similar calculation in Vietnam. In the 1964 elections, he succumbed to dove-baiting by the Republicans by intellectually committing the US to the defence of South Vietnam, which was menaced by its Communist northern neighbour. But he also pledged not to send in ground-troops – a triangulation that made his conservative opponent, Barry Goldwater, look like a warmonger in comparison. The flimsy paradox of supporting-yet-not-really-supporting the South couldn’t be maintained in the face of increased communist aggression. In 1965, Johnson began bombing the communist-controlled areas and raised troop numbers. But still he worried about the impact a high death rate might have on his re-election chances, so he limited the war and committed only the money and numbers necessary to sustain the status-quo – against the advice of his generals. Stuck between winning the war and pulling out, Johnson chose compromise. Against his design, thousands of US soldiers died as a result.
Of course, it’s always tricky to draw parallels between conflicts. But Obama’s reduction only brings the number of troops serving in that arid hell back to pre-surge level. It is a compromise that is morally akin to Johnson’s and it arises from the Democrats’ age-old fear of looking weak on defence. It is American soldiers who will pay the price of that paranoia. In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam in the 1960’s, the US government is allied to a domestic regime that is corrupt and maybe beyond democratising. In Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the war is unwinnable by the vague set of goals attributed to it. That nation has resisted every foreign effort to re-order its culture that history has thrust upon it – British, Soviet and American. The will for secular democracy is lacking and the terrain is treacherous. No wonder some conservatives are saying that this is the wrong war. Now that the Taliban has been dislodged, the real base of terror is Pakistan. Maintaining the West’s perilous grip over a mound of earth in some Afghan province hardly seems worth the blood and money.
But once entered in to, the game of politics must be played to its hopeless conclusion. Electoral logic dictates that the Republicans must oppose everything the incumbent Democrat does – even if their own hawkishness propelled him into that position in the first place. In the 1960s, the GOP vacillated between a “bomb ‘em back the stone age” and a “bring our boys home” position, each predicated on the belief that “new leadership” should supplant Johnson and bring an end to the war as soon as possible. George Romney – Mitt Romney’s pappy – entered the 1968 Republican presidential primaries as a peace candidate; Ronald Reagan stepped in at the last minute promising to hand the entire United States government over to the military. Richard Nixon straddled the two positions in his wicked, brilliant way, producing a compromise that prolonged the war for another four years. And so the endless game of move and counter move goes on – and the body count will mount until the consensus breaks down.
For triangulation gone wild, take a look at Ann Coulter’s latest appearance on the O’Reilly Factor. She attacks America’s presence in Afghanistan … and then says that the US ought to invade Iran instead. It’s a comment coloured by her usual, wonderful line in irony (Ms Coulter also suggests invading Canada), but it speaks to the unreality of the debate. The Republicans are opposing Obama’s reduction from all angles. Some, like John McCain, say it’s an act of cowardice. Others, like Rand Paul, feel it doesn’t go far enough. And most of them are decrying the Libyan expedition – an extraordinary 180 for the party that designated Arabia ripe for civilising just ten years ago. Policy is being dictated, just as it was 50 years ago, by electoral logic. The Republicans must find something to dislike. And Barack Obama, who should have withdrawn from Afghanistan upon his election, must now limit military operations to whatever costs as few as lives as possible while still keeping the Kabul branch of Chase Manhattan open for business.
No comments:
Post a Comment