Obama's Afghanistan exit strategy brings conflict to the domestic frontline


Despite its tremendous cost – including more than 1,600 American military fatalities – the war in Afghanistan has not received a great deal of media attention in the US. It has not been the focus of extensive Congressional debate, nor was it a major issue in the presidential election of 2008 or the congressional elections of last year.
But President Obama's announcement that he intends to withdraw 33,000 of the 100,000 US troops deployed in Afghanistan by the end of next year – reversing the surge he ordered at the end of 2009 – could finally precipitate a public clash. Champions of the war are now protesting that the president is wimping out, while opponenrts are complaining that the drawdown is too slow to bring US involvement in the war to an end. Contenders for the Republican presidential nomination reacted to the president's announcement in different ways. Afghanistan, it seems, might finally become a political issue.
Many congressional Democrats have long been skeptical of the war and didn't approve Obama's decision to boost the US presence in Afghanistan. Yet these Democrats, until recently, have only gingerly registered their opposition.
Republicans, in keeping with their traditional hawkishness, have largely backed Obama's surge, though prominent supporters such as senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have repeatedly complained about Obama withdrawing troops prematurely, transmitting a mixed message of concerned support. The few non-interventionist/isolationist Republicans who questioned the war did not have much political room for manoeuvre. The war proceeded without much fuss.
But ever since Obama announced the 2009 surge, this moment has been looming, for the president had noted then that July 2011 would mark the start of a disengagement. He never said how fast or extensive the troop withdrawal would be – only that it would begin now, which had the effect of suspending the political debate.
Hawks worried that Obama would cut out on the troops-heavy counterinsurgency mission they fancied, but they couldn't be sure. And doves had trouble gaining traction for their anti-war efforts, while the president was saying that soon the United States would be bringing its troops home. The American public seemed content to not have to ponder these dicey issues.
Now Afghanistan is centre stage. With this middle course – withdrawing not too many, but not too few troops – Obama is obviously trying to persuade the public, especially the independent voters he will need in 2012, that he is indeed delivering on his promise, but doing so cautiously and responsibly. The White House hopes this stance will prevent any major political firestorm. But among the politics-and-policy class, there's likely to be a swirl of clashes.
Last month, a large number of House Democrats joined with a handful of Republicans to establish a timetable for withdrawal; they lost on a close 215-204 vote. This group, which has been drawing increasing strength, is not likely to be appeased by Obama's announcement.
"It has been the hope of many in Congress and across the country that the full drawdown of US forces would happen sooner than the president laid out," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said after the speech. Meanwhile, hawks such as McCain and Graham quickly started complaining, with McCain griping that Obama's plan, "poses an unnecessary risk to the hard-won gains that our troops have made thus far in Afghanistan".
In the Republican presidential contest, three of the candidates immediately struck differing positions. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman said Obama's withdrawal is too slow. Former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty called for a slower drawdown, in keeping with the more modest proposal General David Petraeus reportedly backed. And former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has had a muddled position of late, reverted to an old conservative cliché. "We shouldn't adhere to an arbitrary timetable on the withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan," he said. These differences could lead to feisty primary debates in the weeks and months ahead.
So will Afghanistan become a major issue in the 2012 election? Certainly it won't compete with the flailing economy for attention – even if it is costing American taxpayers $120bn a year. Obama, who will attempt to remain above the various intra-mural debates on Afghanistan, has conveniently scheduled his de-surge to be finished by September 2012. That date was suggested by defence secretary Robert Gates as a compromise, after the White House proposed an early 2012 deadline and Petraeus requested an end-of-year deadline.
But if the September 2012 date is met, the president will be able to claim that he has kept his promise to ratchet back the war and to argue he should be trusted to guide its continuing reduction. At that point, a Republican nominee who contends the war should be bolstered will likely be at a disadvantage.


Obama's Afghanistan exit strategy brings conflict to the domestic frontline | World news | guardian.co.uk