There is no foreign policy challenge currently facing President Obama’s administration that is more important than Afghanistan. Pressure from the left and the right, as well as the realities on the ground, are driving the decision-making process. During the campaign, Obama referred to Afghanistan as the “good war” (in contrast to the war in Iraq), yet upon his arrival in the Oval Office, President Obama has been forced to table the promises of 2008. The situation in Afghanistan is now a “war of necessity” and a wedge issue dividing Obama’s constituency; he faces one of his toughest decisions yet.
Obama’s policy on Afghanistan has been evolving since he became commander in chief. On March 27, Obama announced a new, comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan that included sending 21,000 more troops to secure a quickly deteriorating situation. After the removal of Gen. David McKiernan and the installation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the administration charged the new commander with reviewing U.S. policy. McChrystal presented the administration with a request for 40,000 additional troops, whereas Vice President Joe Biden is advocating for scaling back troop levels. This year is on track to become the deadliest year for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the October 2001 invasion – the president will have to take this into consideration.
Though the public and policymakers are both eager to see a well-articulated policy put into effect, the Obama administration finds itself in a corner. Corruption in Afghanistan complicates U.S. operations: The lack of reliable local governance places strains on foreign civilians providing services and puts coalition troops in danger when providing security. Moreover, the presidential elections in August resulted in a stalemate, raising doubts about the incumbent Hamid Karzai government. Though a run-off was scheduled, the main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew from the race; the Afghan election commission then declared Karzai the winner. This disconcerting development and the revelation that Karzai’s brother (suspected of being involved in opium trade) is on the CIA payroll underscores the endemic problem limiting Afghanistan’s progress.
Several members of Georgetown’s faculty have offered their views of the current situation in Afghanistan. School of Foreign Service professor Charles Kupchan, in a Nov. 3 opinion piece in the Financial Times, argues that a weak government in Afghanistan provides no assurances for a successful surge strategy.
Paul Pillar of Georgetown’s Center for Peace and Security Studies takes a similar approach, advocating a concentration of U.S. efforts on training Afghanistan’s police forces and army and fostering economic development. “Foreign troops don’t win insurgencies, local troops and police do,” assistant professor of security studies Christine Fair says. Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States, Said Jawad, believes more U.S. troops would demonstrate a “clear commitment to success against the resurgent Taliban.”
With public opinion turning against the war in Afghanistan and political leaders losing the will to commit more troops, the U.S. mission is in danger of failing. There is a better option, however. The proposed hybrid McChrystal-Biden plan of increasing troops in the major population centers may halt the Taliban’s gains, particularly in southern Afghanistan. Using smaller, highly skilled teams to apprehend insurgents in targeted operations will work well in rural areas plagued by lawlessness. The Obama administration must also leverage its revitalized relationships with European countries to convince our NATO allies – the United Kingdom, France and Germany, mainly – to commit more troops to the mission.
Ultimately, the goal is to secure Afghanistan and foster the right environment for sustainable self-governance and development. A complete withdrawal would be costly in both life and treasure for the United States. Undoubtedly, sacrifices have been made and will continue to be made – and because of this inescapable reality, Obama must weigh his options carefully. This issue will likely define his foreign policy legacy, if not his presidential legacy as a whole. With these recent developments, he faces a crucial test in leadership. Rejuvenating ties with NATO allies and adhering to the newly proposed hybrid plan may help him pass the test posed by Afghanistan with flying colors.
*To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact [opinionthehoya.com](opinionthehoya.com). Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.*”
