Responsibly Ending the War in Afghanistan
This weekend saw the announcement of a U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement. That agreement, which commits the U.S. to supporting Afghanistan for a decade after 2014, is a key part of transitioning military responsibility to Afghans and ending the U.S. combat role. The U.S. and NATO must now focus on the politics, economics and diplomacy that must accompany an end to the U.S. military role. Finally, as the U.S., our NATO allies and Afghans make detailed plans for transition, the public is hearing criticism of the U.S. approach without a substantive debate on alternatives: the Bloomberg editorial board this week challenged Mitt Romney to state clearly where he stands, and called his plans “vague and frustrating.”
The U.S. and Afghanistan agree to a Strategic Partnership Agreement, key to moving ahead on transition from U.S. to Afghan combat forces. As the Washington Post reports, “After more than a year of negotiations, U.S. and Afghan officials reached an agreement Sunday affirming the United States’ commitment to Afghanistan for a decade after its formal troop withdrawal in 2014. The document, which must be reviewed by the Afghan parliament and U.S. security agencies and signed by both nations’ presidents, does not specify troop numbers or funding levels, but it offers a broad guarantee that the U.S. role here will not end as abruptly as some feared it might… The document pledges American financial support for Afghanistan through 2024 and refers to the ongoing U.S. role in bolstering Afghan democracy and civil society. But the specifics of the U.S. commitment have yet to be formally outlined and could be governed by future agreements.” The BBC expands, noting that, “A final commitment on funding Afghan security is expected to be announced at the Chicago summit of Nato leaders next month.” [Washington Post, 4/22/12. BBC, 4/22/12]
Successful transition requires focus on politics, economics and training Afghan security forces. Caroline Wadhams of the Center for American Progress has written, “A central objective of American strategy in Afghanistan should be to ensure, to the extent possible, a peaceful and sustainable transition to Afghan lead. This will require a doubling down on the political and diplomatic components of U.S. strategy and improved synchronization between these components and the reduced military footprint…A bolstered diplomatic and political strategy requires supporting intra-Afghan negotiations that include Afghanistan’s diverse stakeholders, including but not limited to President Karzai and Afghan insurgents; assisting Afghans prepare for and conduct their presidential election in 2014, when President Karzai is required by the constitution to hand power to another elected Afghan leader; and pursuing a regional framework that reinforces an Afghan political settlement.”
Economic questions also loom large. As Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies writes, “Developing this stability, however, requires as much focus on economics as politics, governance, and security… [Policymakers] need to address corruption, the steady outflow of capital, the inability to determine what portion of spending is actually spent in – and stays in – Afghanistan. They need to address the fact that narcotics and grey and black economic activity is a major part of the Afghan domestic economy. They need to stop making absurdly optimistic assumptions about the ‘New Silk Road,’ future domestic revenues and exports, and the other techniques being used to promise progress that cannot happen.” [Caroline Wadhams, 3/16/12. Anthony Cordesman, 4/18/12]
Non-partisan experts challenge Romney on his “vague and frustrating” Afghanistan policy. The winner of this year’s presidential contest will be tasked with winding down America’s longest war. Yet the public has heard little debate on the subject, in large part because candidate Romney’s positions have been, in the words of the Bloomberg editorial board, “vague and frustrating.”
Bloomberg editorial board. “Romney — who, as we know from other issues, has the entire spectrum of possible opinions available to him — has not clearly said where he stands. This is a policy question, not a military one. ‘Leave it to the generals’ is not an acceptable answer in our democracy. ‘We should not negotiate with the Taliban,’ Romney says. ‘We should defeat the Taliban.’ On this one aspect of the perplexing Afghanistan war, there is a real disagreement, because the Obama administration is in fact negotiating, albeit episodically, with the Taliban. This is pretty appalling, but so are all the other options. Of course we should defeat the Taliban. We also should cure world hunger. You don’t get credit for wishing. The U.S. has spent nearly 11 years so far, not to mention hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of young lives, trying to defeat the Taliban. How much American blood and treasure is Romney prepared to spend?” [Bloomberg, 4/22/12]
Blake Hounshell, managing editor at Foreign Policy magazine. “Enter Mitt Romney, whose positions on Afghanistan have been all over the map. He’s criticized the Obama administration for setting a timeline for withdrawal, but he has endorsed the timeline in practice. He’s denounced the idea of negotiating with the Taliban but hasn’t explained how he plans to defeat the insurgent movement on the battlefield. His main substantive complaint seems to be that Obama is withdrawing the surge troops by September instead of … December. … Indeed, his campaign’s few pronouncements on this subject are reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s ‘secret plan’ to end the war in Vietnam, which turned out to be a plan to cut and run without ever admitting as much. The truth is that Romney holds more or less the same position on Afghanistan as the president — steadily turning control over to the Afghans in the run-up to 2014, while cajoling the Pakistanis to be more cooperative — but he just can’t admit it.” [Blake Hounshell, 4/23/12]
James Lindsay, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. After pointing out bipartisan opposition to the war, Lindsay notes, “These numbers point to Romney’s political bind. He has talked tough on Afghanistan ever since last June, when Republican national security conservatives blasted him for what they saw as his insufficient commitment to the mission there. Romney responded with much tougher rhetoric even though the policies he favors look a lot like Obama’s. Now that Romney has the nomination locked up he could dial back his rhetoric, emphasize his desire to depart Afghanistan, and thereby keep pace with where public sentiment is headed. But doing that risks alienating a sizable chunk of his base and potentially confirming the charge that he is a flip-flopper. Conversely, Romney could stick with the tough talk, but that risks putting him at odds with voters. Ironically, that would confirm a different, but equally damaging charge that Romney has been trying to fight off, namely, that he is out-of-touch with the American public.” [James Lindsay, 4/19/12]
What We’re Reading
Sudanese jets launched four missiles into South Sudan, killing at least one and wounding 10 others.
China urges restraint from both Sudan and South Sudan, after South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir said Sudan has “declared war” on his country.
South African President Jacob Zuma is favored to win a second term in office.
Egypt has rejected a request from eight U.S.-based civil society groups for licenses to operate in the country.
In advance of Israel’s 64th Independence Day, President Obama sent Israeli President Shimon Peres a letter confirming that relations between the two countries remain “deep and strong.”
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte resigned after a far-right party withheld its support for his administration.
Chinese and German leaders engaged in trade talks, highlighting common interests but also urging one another to compromise on more complex issues.
Panetta and his staff visited Colombia to visit a military training center, where American trainers develop the Colombian special forces.
Iceland’s former prime minister was convicted of failing to inform his cabinet of critical developments during the 2008 financial crisis, but acquitted of three charges of negligence.
Commentary of the Day
Thomas Pickering writes that a recent Iranian proposal holds potential if both sides are ready to look at win-win possibilities, but there is a long, hard path ahead.
The Los Angeles Times editorial board argues that cybersecurity is a serious threat, but House legislation to address the vulnerabilities is too sweeping.
Gideon Rachmann suggests French anxieties about globalization, austerity and identity will be reflected in France’s behavior in Europe.
