Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

A Mixed Verdict on Obama's Afghan Plans

NATO leaders were hugely supportive of President Obama's new plans and goals for Afghanistan over the weekend. But that doesn't mean they actually want their troops involved.

I have to wonder if that's not the same way most Americans would respond if it were up to them.

Edward Cody writes in The Washington Post: "NATO allies handed President Obama a broad endorsement of his new Afghan strategy Saturday, pledging the temporary dispatch of 3,000 troops to protect elections next August, new military training teams to strengthen Afghanistan's army and more civilian experts to consolidate its government.

"The promises...dramatized once again that European leaders are unwilling to follow Obama's lead in making major new commitments of troops to fight and perhaps die in a faraway war that is widely unpopular among their voters.

"At a closing news conference, Obama portrayed the outcome as a success for his maiden encounter with NATO summitry, suggesting that trainers and civilians can be just as valuable as fighters."

But in the New York Times, Steven Erlanger and Helene Cooper called it a "tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan....

"Despite a glowing reception and widespread praise for Mr. Obama’s style and aims, his calls for a more lasting European troop increase for Afghanistan were politely brushed aside, as they had been in negotiations leading up to the meeting....

"'No one will say this publicly, but the true fact is that we are all talking about our exit strategy from Afghanistan,' a senior European diplomat said Saturday. 'We are getting out. It may take a couple of years, but we are all looking to get out.'"

Where's our exit strategy? Still nowhere to be found.

Asked at the news conference if he still believes in "American exceptionalism," Obama restated his views about American leadership and collaboration.

"Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we've got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we're not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.

"And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can't solve these problems alone."

By Dan Froomkin  |  April 6, 2009; 1:20 PM ET
Categories:  Afghanistan  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Quick Takes
Next: The Not-Bush Tour in Turkey

Comments

The Europeans are all talk and no action.

Many there actually believe that if the internet was around in 1933 it would have stopped WWII. Well, why did the internet not stop the genocide in Rwanda? Or the genocide in Darfur? Because, talk without action is just talk and sometimes the threat of military action is really needed to make something happen.

Posted by: troyd2009 | April 6, 2009 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Troyd2009 you are just making stuff up. If you are not, why not point us in the direction of this research you seem to be quoting?

Posted by: m_mcmahon | April 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Report abuse

The German troops in Afganistan are absolutely worthless. Worse than worthless because if they weren't there at least we would know that the job that they are supposed to be doing wasn't being done. They are the ones that have had the responsiblity for training the Afgan police. We should ask them to guard the Afgan-Turkmenistan border. In any case, the real enemy was allowed to escape to Pakistan and we can't/won't do anything about that, so we might as well come home. There is no war to win in Afganistan.

Posted by: dickdata | April 6, 2009 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Mixed? Tepid? Yes. I say, "Wait and see."
Nonetheless, Mr Froomkin, please continue keeping all the Presidents' feet to the fire. That is is the mandate of the fourth rail.

Posted by: drum_sing | April 6, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company