President Obama made his long-discussed move in Afghanistan official yesterday:
President Obama ordered his first major deployment of U.S. combat troops Tuesday, authorizing 17,000 additional soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan in what he described as an urgent bid to stabilize a deteriorating and neglected country.
The deployment will double the number of American combat brigades in the nation at a time of tension with Afghanistan’s weak government over civilian casualties of the campaign against the increasingly bold Taliban, and concern over neighboring Pakistan’s ability to fight Islamic militants based there.
Just don’t call it a “surge”:
Debate has raged for months about the possible effectiveness in Afghanistan of a “surge,” the term used for the 2007 troop increase in Iraq that has been credited with helping stabilize that country.
Military officials have been careful not to use that terminology for the current increase in Afghanistan, arguing that additional troops could be needed there for years. But senior Defense officials said that they believe they must quickly demonstrate results, roll back Taliban advances and bring some measure of stability.
Presumably, “surge” now lies in the purgatory of buzzwords alongside “War on Terror”. Besides, we wouldn’t want anyone comparing the President’s rhetoric on the campaign trail too closely with his deeds, you know. The Australian, which seems to have a keen eye for truth and hypocrisy, is speaking plainly, though:
President Barack Obama based his national security credentials on Afghanistan, and as President he desperately needs to make it work. Obama seems to think that the surge strategy, which he opposed but which many believe has worked in Iraq, will work in Afghanistan too. However, fulfilling his promise to rebuild the US’s global leadership depends on his ability to persuade other countries to surge with him. This is his first big chance to show Americans that he really can do better than Bush. He can’t afford to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment