I have a short op-ed in the New York Times this morning, part of a roundtable on Obama's July 2011 timeline for the Afghan escalation. It's pretty cool to be in a group with Ahmed Rashid and my CNAS colleague Nate Fick. Since it's so short, here's the whole thing:
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S critics argue that
his plan to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan starting in July
2011 signals a fatal lack of resolve, inviting the Taliban to wait out
a feckless America, or else has no credibility. In fact, the deadline
is crucial to the strategy. Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical
of the prospects for the new plan, from the hopeless corruption in
Kabul to the difficulties of state-building. But a clearly communicated
timeline increases the odds of success.
The July 2011 date should be understood as an inflection point, not
as the end of the American military mission. There is no “mission
accomplished” here. The American commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan
will continue. The pace and location of withdrawals will be dictated by
conditions on the ground and, indeed, the date itself was carefully
chosen based on the military’s best calculations of improved security
and political conditions. It was not drawn from a hat, or determined by
the domestic political calendar.
The deadline is essential politically because it will provide the
necessary urgency for Afghans to make the institutional reforms that
will ensure their own survival. An open-ended commitment creates a
terrible moral hazard in which Afghan leaders, assuming American troops
will always be there to protect them, may make risky or
counterproductive decisions. A limited, conditional commitment creates
the leverage needed to generate the institutional transformation
necessary to cement any gains made by the military.
Just as in the Iraq debate, hawks who insist on an open-ended
commitment to “victory” misunderstand the strategic incentives created
by an unconditional military promise. Contrary to prevailing myths of
the Iraq surge, Iraqi politicians began to make serious moves toward
overcoming their political and sectarian divides only in mid-2008, when
it became likely that an Obama electoral victory would lead to an end
of the unconditional American commitment.
President Obama’s deadline will not compromise the military mission.
The surge of troops is meant to blunt the momentum of the Taliban,
establish security and provide space for the spread of governance and
legitimacy. Should the Taliban choose to retreat and wait out the
American mission, this would be a blessing, not a curse. It would allow
America to establish control more easily and help build effective local
and national governments.
The greater problem for the Obama administration will be to make the
commitment to the drawdown credible. Many expect that the military will
come back in a year asking for more troops and time. The blizzard of
conflicting messages coming from Washington this week did little to
diminish the expectation. This is troubling, because the political
logic of the deadline works only if Afghans on both sides believe in
it.
Skeptics among the public and in Congress can provide an essential
service by carefully monitoring progress and supporting the strategy
while making it clear that there will be no tolerance for future
escalations or open-ended commitments.
Read More
(10)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE