Strategic Panorama 2009 - 2010 - IEEE

International relations and the new world governance
paign lasting several years with a contingent equal to or greater than had
been deployed in Mesopotamia and with prospects of even more casualties.
Many Americans who had voted for Obama had done so expecting
the new president to withdraw the troops from both theatres as soon as
possible, while steering US foreign policy towards greater cooperation
and a more restrictive use of force. After all, these ideals had been part
and parcel of the Democrats’ propaganda. At a time of economic crisis,
public debt and unemployment, the more «liberal» voters rejected the idea
of keeping up an exceptionally high level of military expenditure to support
the deployment of large human contingents in remote places.
President Obama faced a complex dilemma. If he accepted his generals’
advice, within no time at all he would find himself doing the same as
his predecessor whom he had criticised so much and vis-à-vis whom he
had presented himself as the best option for change. If, on the contrary,
he rejected this advice, it could lead the United States to military defeat
after years of war against a guerrilla armed with assault rifles and mortars.
This could have serious implications for international security. The first
option could lead to poor results in the 2010 elections and perhaps dash
his chances of re-election in 2012. The second could guarantee him his
followers’ support in the short term, but a defeat in Afghanistan would
end up confirming Republican criticisms of his defeatist diplomacy. After
an unusually long period of reflection, President Obama delivered what is
to date his most important address on the strategy in Afghanistan to the
cadets of West Point military academy, in which he disclosed some of
the pillars of his new strategy. According to the new Administration, the
reason for US military presence there is al-Qaeda and action needs to be
focused on combating this Jihadist organisation. The Taliban forces do
not deserve the same attention. It is considered a priority to stabilise the
country and this fact is linked to the security of Pakistan, an idea that goes
back a considerable way, but a timeframe is now established for collaboration.
The United States will allocate a further 30,000 troops to its contingent,
increase anti-Taliban efforts, collaborate with its allies in training
the national army and helping the government to develop the institutions…
but will pull out in eighteen months.
The new strategy follows not a military but a political logic, as is only
normal in a democracy. Obama owes his majority support in Congress
to an electorate who demand a change in foreign policy, while his generals
are presenting him with a strategy that clearly advocates continuity
with the Bush Administration. The distinction between al-Qaeda and
— 118 —