Analysis
He proposed a drawdown of those same troops to begin this July, with a final handoff to Afghan authorities and an end to the war by the end of 2014.
His June 22 speech addresses to what extent he will honor his promises—and how, and when.
There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Their mission is to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda,” and secondly, to stabilize the country so that it will no longer be a haven for terrorists.
The military presence in Afghanistan also helps to stabilize neighboring, unstable and nuclear-powered Pakistan, an important strategic objective that does not get enough attention, said Jason Campbell, a researcher with the Rand Corporation
specializing in Afghanistan.
Despite gains won by the increase in manpower on the ground in Afghanistan, political pressure at home is intensifying to bring the troops home.
Recent opinion polls show that a majority of Americans have had enough of the decade-long war, and war in general.
A significant number of lawmakers, including 87 Republicans, voted last week on a resolution proposed by Democratic Dennis Kucinich of Ohio to cease all military activities in Libya. The vote was seen by many as an indicator of a real change in Congress toward war spending, prompted by constituents’ concerns.
“There are a growing number of voices saying that it is time to stop being the world’s cop,” said Gordon Adams, professor with the U.S. Foreign Policy program at Washington-based American University.
“We have now begun to see the beginning of a sea-change in the way that Congress is viewing these commitments, and that includes both Afghanistan and Libya,” Adams said.
Even the celebrated elimination of Osama bin Laden in May could be a liability for Obama. An expert suggested that it helped fuel the sense on the part of a majority of Americans that our job is done in Afghanistan, and that the troops can come home.
“It’s given some of the detractors on Afghanistan a real big political card to play, to say, well he is dead, so essentially our mission is completed,” said Campbell.
Attempts to get the nation’s fiscal policy in order have also led voters to call for troop reductions as a way to cut costs.
Jay Carney, White House press secretary, said in a press briefing that the president was mindful of cost constraints, and would take it into account when making his decision.
Experts say the difference of a few thousand troops is nominal. The potential costs of a failure in Afghanistan could be really bad, Campbell suggested.
The United States is spending $120 billion a year to sustain the war. The estimated costs of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars are as high as a trillion dollars.
The Likely Outcome
In a speech to NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Belgium, in March, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the U.S. troop surge had led to gains, but the effort must be sustained.
Gates warned that all gains would be threatened if troops leave before completing “strategic objectives.”
“I say this while recognizing the intense pressure that many nations face to reduce their commitment. We have all made extraordinary contributions to this effort, in the face of fiscal austerity and political pressure,” he said.
Obama’s policy choices are more likely to side with Gates more than with voter sentiment. The president will not want to risk things going wrong in Afghanistan on his watch.
Should a major setback occur in Afghanistan—and the chances are higher the greater the troop drawdown—Obama “will not look good and he will be attacked in the 2012 election campaign,” said Adams.
Obama has proven himself to be cautious in his foreign policy. He will be casting his best bet that, in the end his troop surge will bring lasting results and prove his policies correct, and that the drawdown levels he orders are not too much, or too little.
