Obama's Janus-Faced Plans for Iraq and Afghanistan

by Liberty and Power

Obama lays out his plans for Iraq and Afghanistan in an op-ed for The New York Times. It reveals on full display a proposed foreign policy of confusion and contradiction.

With the notable exception of calling for a"residual force" to fight Al Qaeda and train troops, Obama sensibly argues that the best policy is to wean the Iraqis from dependence on the United States and create "a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country."

Not recognizing the contradiction, however, Obama proposes the exact opposite solution for Afghanistan. Instead of letting the Afghans take"responsiblity for the security of their country," he wants to make them even more dependent on American welfare:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

David T. Beito - 7/17/2008

Well...it is really both. You are right, however, that the Afghan war is currently popular though I wonder how long that will remain true in the coming months.

Tim Sydney - 7/15/2008

Maybe he's not so much "two faced" as having his "ear close to the ground". The Iraq war is now electorally unpopular in a way that the Afghanistan war is not. The antiwar movement has little difficulty in persuading the unaligned to the stupidity of the Iraq war, the Afghan war however is seen as more 'legitimate'.

This popular argument presumably is derived from the pre-9/11 collaboration between the Taliban leadership and Al Qaeda.

Of course, a contrarian could point out that the Afghanistan campaign may be even more pointless and wasteful than Iraq.

Firstly, the Taliban represent the militant arm of the Pashtoon 'tribe', who constitute perhaps 55% of the total population. The Baghdad government at least has grudging support from Iraq's predominant Shi'ites. So the campaign there has at least had some 'democratic merit'.

Secondly, America is better able to bring it's material advantages to bear in flat open Iraq than in mountainous Afghanistan.

Thirdly, Iraq at least has broader oil and geo-strategic advantages that make it more of a prize than Afghanistan. At least the Taliban, whatever their faults, did better at suppressing the narcotics trade than our current allies.