Afghanistan: the end of the surge It must be very difficult to construct an intelligent American foreign policy in this era of limited financial resources and even more limited popular appetite for international incursions. Yet somehow President Obama has managed to announce a significant increase and, a year and a half later, a significant decrease in America troop levels in Afghanistan with very little fanfare and very few statements from the White House on how this largely forgotten war has progressed. And even more strangely, because he did it almost without public acknowledgement, Obama has succeeded in launching the United States into another armed conflict in yet another Muslim country – Libya. Beyond decision-making in the White House and voting in the Congress, the language of America's foreign policy, in Alice-in-Wonderland style, has grown curiouser and curiouser. The president announced on June 22nd that he is withdrawing troops from Afghanistan not because we have won the war or because they are no longer needed but because he said he would when he announced the surge. This is foreign policy conducted as a matter of personal integrity by our armed forces commander-in-chief. It has little to do with facts on the ground, with the recommendations of our military leaders, with the increasingly vocal opponents of the war, or with America keeping its word to the countries we say we wish to rescue. That Obama announced an arbitrary end date for the surge when it began and now keeps his word by withdrawing the troops according to that arbitrary schedule is no cause for celebration at home or abroad. It is, however, another example of the personalization of the office of the presidency that has characterized Obama's approach to his job since he entered the White House. Notice the odd syntax the president uses to justify withdrawing troops. He does not say that we have met our goals and that the enemy has been defeated. He claims instead that “we are meeting our goals” and “we've inflicted serious losses on the Taliban and taken a number of its strongholds.” These carefully chosen words are truly underwhelming. “We are meeting our goals.” Why withdraw troops before we have met our goals? We have taken “a number” of the Taliban's strongholds. What number is that? Is it three or thirty? We are not told if this represents ninety percent of their strongholds or only nine percent. We've inflicted “serious losses”. That is a subjective term. How serious is “serious”? “Serious” is not “decisive.” Obama does not claim that we have turned the tide of battle. Instead, he claims that “tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding.” Why is it receding? That should be the question he answers. Is it because we're winning? Is it because the Taliban is regrouping and waiting for us to leave? Or is it simply because tides, by their nature, ebb and flow? The tide of war that “is receding” this year may advance next year. Then again, it may be that the reason the tide of war is receding is provided by Obama in his next sentence: “Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm's way.” Is the president saying that “the tide of war is receding” because we're withdrawing from the battlefront? That's a plausible explanation, but not a reassuring one. He continues, “We have ended our combat mission in Iraq…And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.” Not “my commanders assure me that within two years we will have destroyed the Taliban as a fighting force”. Not “they can't hold out much longer against our superior fire power or against the strategic brilliance of General Petraeus.” Not even “I see the light of a secure peace in the distance” but rather the passive tense with no discernible speaker: “the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance.” But who sees it and what is the evidence for it? “These long wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] will come to a responsible end.” Really? What makes you think so, Mr. President? Make the case. He doesn't make the case. He doesn't really try. Yet he emphasizes responsibility. In fact, he uses “responsible”, “responsibly”, or “responsibility” seven times in his brief little speech of only 2,030 words. Four of those instances are about the Afghans finally taking responsibility for their own security. The Afghan government “must step up its ability to protect its people.” But whether the Afghans have shown that they are capable of taking responsibility or willing to take responsibility for their own security are questions the president barely touches upon. The speech seemed short, especially in comparison to the December 1, 2009 speech in which he announced the surge. In that earlier speech, the president carefully laid out the objectives, the strategy, the history of the war, and the importance of waging it. He did so in 4,636 words – more than twice the length of his June 22, 2011 speech, in which he announced the end of the surge. Perhaps to add a bit of gravitas to an otherwise lightweight presentation, Obama modeled some of his closing paragraph after that of Lincoln's second inaugural address. Compare Obama's “let us finish the work at hand” with Lincoln's “let us strive on to finish the work we are in”, or Obama's “With confidence in our cause; with faith in our fellow citizens; and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America”, with Lincoln's “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right…let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds…” Even for a man of Obama's reputed eloquence, it's hard to compete with Abraham Lincoln. McCain: “Our interests are our values” A more blunt-spoken American politician, Obama's opponent in the last presidential election, minced no words last week as he confused and conflated two essential elements of America's foreign policy. Senator John McCain, on ABC's This Week, was asked about America's national interests in Libya. He responded as follows: “The fact is, our interests are our values. And our values are that we don't want people needlessly slaughtered by the thousands if we can prevent such activity.” This does Obama one better. The president has long spoken of “our interests and our values” – lumping them together. Now McCain proclaims that interests and values are identical. That's a dangerous approach to foreign policy. We need clear thinking about a set of distinctions on which to base our actions overseas. Interests have traditionally referred to benefits to our national life – economic, military, political, and strategic benefits. The Bahraini government, for example, provides the United States usage of a base for the Fifth Fleet. That is a significant military and strategic benefit to our country. The U.S. has a national interest in maintaining that base. If the Khalifa family, which has ruled Bahrain since the late 18th century, falls and is replaced by a Shia-dominated government, democratic or otherwise, that political upheaval might result in the loss of our base. Our interests lie with the Sunni rulers, not with the Shia majority. That's not the end of the story, however. Our values are not the same as our interests. They are something quite different. They are moral goods. The promotion of democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, protection of civilians, etc. – these are American values, which are, at times, opposed to our interests. Even when they are not, they represent an independent set of variables. The prevention of genocide, for example, is a value which several U.S. presidents have espoused. President Clinton has said he regretted not having intervened in Rwanda to prevent the mass murder of Tutsis that occurred there in 1994. His approach might be the best American policy – non-intervention coupled with subsequent statements of regret for not intervening. This way we don't get into the messy business of separating warring tribes or of nation-building. And we get to say how sorry we are that we didn't do anything. A contrite superpower. How lovable. That approach also means that we don't save lives. 800,000 people died in Rwanda. America was not responsible for it happening. Nor did it take responsibility for preventing it. Given America's traditional non-intervention in military struggles in sub-Saharan Africa – the Congo, Darfur, the Ivory Coast, among others – I question whether Bill Clinton then or Barack Obama today would actually intervene to prevent another Rwandan-style tragedy. All American presidents, for the foreseeable future, must learn to live with the uncomfortable knowledge that our resources are limited, our taxpayers are angry, and the world remains a bloody place beyond America's capacity to staunch the flow of blood. This is not a noble truth, but it is one that Americans can tolerate if it is presented clearly and honestly. Samantha Power: “a duty to act” Samantha Power, appointed by Obama to the National Security Council, is a strong proponent of American intervention to prevent genocide. In her Pulitzer-prize-winning tome, A Problem from Hell, she concluded that: “The United States should stop genocide for two reasons. The first and most compelling reason is moral. When innocent life is being taken on such a scale and the United States has the power to stop the killing at reasonable risk, it has a duty to act…[T]he second reason: enlightened self-interest…[A]llowing genocide undermine[s] regional and international security…[S]ecurity for Americans at home and abroad is contingent on international stability.” Thus she attempts to make the case that intervention to prevent mass murder brings together America's values and its interests. Her case, however, is not compelling. She argues morality persuasively, but the interest argument seems like an add-on and a stretch. On what basis does the U.S. have “a duty to act” to save the lives of non-Americans? It's a harsh and ugly question but it needs to be asked. Saving the lives of Americans is the duty of an American president. Saving other peoples' lives is a mitzvah –a good deed – but not an American president's duty. And what constitutes a “reasonable risk” when saving the lives of Libyans or Afghanis? The life of one American or the lives of a thousand Americans? A hundred million dollars or a hundred billion dollars? We could have used the Bill Clinton approach in Libya, urging Gaddafi not to attack civilians but not intervening when he did and subsequently lamenting the loss of life. Obama, McCain, and other advocates of humanitarian intervention in Libya made much of Gaddafi's speech on March 17, directed at the rebels in Benghazi: “Those infidels who are attempting to burn down our country to the ground, we should have no mercy on them. Those are the traitors…those infidels and traitors we promise to deal with…We will track them down, and search for them, alley by alley, road by road…” However, Gaddafi stated repeatedly that he was not talking about the entire population of Benghazi: “But the peaceful individuals of our people … should put down their weapons, there is no danger. They should not feel unsafe…Throw away your arms and find a way out of the city, and then you are saved.” Would Gaddafi have killed everyone in Benghazi? We don't know. But many American leaders who advocated intervention, including Senator McCain, grossly exaggerated Gaddafi's statement to make it sound as if he planned on murdering the entire population of Libya's second largest city. It's difficult to base a sane foreign policy on misreadings – intentional or otherwise – of foreign leaders' words and deeds. Only a week ago, McCain claimed that: “If we had not intervened, Gadhafi was at the gates of Benghazi. He said he was going to go house to house to kill everybody. That's a city of 700,000 people. What would he be saying now if we had allowed for that to happen?” Asking the right questions about intervention Of course, the questions about U.S. policy towards Gaddafi are different now that we are in this armed conflict. “Should we have gotten in?” is no longer relevant. But as our extended stay in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, the questions must constantly be asked: Why are we there today? What is at stake for America? How will America be affected if we leave now? How will America be affected if we stay? Other questions must be asked about the impact of our intervention on the Iraqis, the Afghanis, the Libyans, and others, but these questions should be addressed separately. In political discussions, the distinctions tend to blur. A question about our ability to defeat the Taliban is countered with a protest about the fate of Afghani women if the Taliban return to power. These are separate issues. Our interests and our values are not the same. How refreshing it would be for a senator or a president to tell the American people the truth about our interests in the various countries of North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, distinguishing our interests from our values, and, having enunciated both, then publicly weigh the two and come to a decision whether to act or not. I long for such a day and such a politician. ** Read more from Michael Lame on his blog rethinkme.org BM
