by: The New York Times
Senator Barack Obama. (Photo: Getty Images)
It has been obvious from the start of the 2008 campaign that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the biggest foreign policy challenges awaiting the next president. But there has been precious little detailed discussion of them on the campaign trail.
Until this week, when Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, offered a sensible and comprehensive blueprint for dealing with the mess that President Bush created by bungling the war of necessity against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which could have made Americans safer, and starting a war of choice in Iraq, which made the world more insecure.
Mr. Obama's Republican rival, Senator John McCain, is no longer able to ignore the situation on the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban - the true threats to American security - are resurgent. But he has not matched Mr. Obama's seriousness on Iraq. Mr. McCain is still tied in knots, largely adopting Mr. Bush's blind defense of an unending conflict.
Mr. Obama has a better grasp of the big picture, despite Mr. McCain's claim to more foreign policy experience. For far too long, Mr. Bush's preoccupation with his misadventure in Iraq - which fostered a presence for Al Qaeda where there was none - has dangerously diverted precious manpower, resources and high-level attention from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As Mr. Obama correctly asserted in an Op-Ed article in The Times on Monday and in a speech on Tuesday, those countries, not Iraq, are the real frontline of the war against terrorism.
Mr. Obama said he would withdraw combat forces from Iraq by 2010, shift at least 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan that could be leveraged to persuade NATO allies to also increase their numbers, send more nonmilitary aid to Afghanistan and build a stronger Afghanistan-Pakistan-NATO partnership on the lawless border. He also promised an extra $2 billion as part of an international effort to deal with more than four million displaced Iraqis - a crisis that the Bush administration has unconscionably ignored.
We were encouraged that Mr. Obama embraced a proposal by the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - the Democratic chairman, Joseph Biden, and the ranking Republican, Richard Lugar - to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan to $7.5 billion over five years. The United States must invest more in building ties with Pakistan's people and strengthening its democracy. Congress should move quickly to adopt the proposal, which also would require a long-overdue plan to address the lawlessness of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
After arguing that no additional forces were needed, Mr. McCain reversed course on Tuesday and endorsed sending 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan. But he seemed confused about whether they would be American forces drawn from Iraq or an American-NATO mix, leaving us wondering how well formed his ideas are.
And it was distressing to hear Mr. McCain still talking about "winning" the war in Iraq and adopting the tedious tactic of accusing Mr. Obama of "giving up" when he talks about a careful withdrawal of troops.
We have no idea what winning means to Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush initially promised a free and democratic Iraq. After spending $656 billion, his administration has retreated from such grandiose notions and he will be lucky to leave behind a marginally functioning central government in a very fragile and violent country.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that reality, and the fact that Mr. Bush's decision to deploy more troops last year has reduced the violence. Mr. McCain uses that to justify an unending war. Mr. Obama wisely said that it was time to capitalize on American soldiers' sacrifices to plan an end to the war. "At some point, a judgment must be made," he said. "Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have the resources to try to make it one."
He pointed out that the military cannot sustain Mr. Bush's troop surge. "True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future," he said.
The United States cannot just turn its back on Iraq, but that is not remotely what Mr. Obama is suggesting. He proposed keeping a residual force in Iraq for specific missions like fighting Al Qaeda. He also wisely asserted he will make tactical adjustments as needed.
The more the United States insists it will not even consider withdrawal, the less incentive Iraqis have to settle their political differences. Iraq's leaders have asked for a withdrawal timetable. The next president needs to take them at their word. The candidates need to keep talking about how they will meet that goal and then address the real threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment