News today that President Bush will announce the withdrawal of 8,000 troops from Iraq early next year and move 4,500 into Afghanistan. Ironically, it's more or less what the start of an Obama Iraq plan would look like -- a brigade or so a month for 16 months. If President Bush gives him a head start, it will be that much easier, not only in terms of an early beginning but also because logistical planning will have begun (see also this CAP proposal).
Obama himself chides both the president and John McCain in his response to the announcement: "In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq’s leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences. So the President’s talk of 'return on success' is a new name for continuing the same strategic mistake that has dominated our foreign policy for over 5 years."
On the Afghanistan side, some of us at TAPPED spent the pre-convention part of the summer debating how a liberal foreign policy should approach Afghanistan. For my part, I tenatively agreed with Obama's plan to send two combat battalions there to provide reinforcement for the Afgan National Army. It's become clear that the U.S. focus on Iraq has allowed Afhanistan to get away from us, with violence and Taliban influence still increasing.
On Bush's policy in Afghanistan, Obama says "[Bush]'s plan comes up short -- it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency. What President Bush and Senator McCain don't understand is that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was -- the central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later ... under President Bush's plan, we still have nearly four times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan, and we have no comprehensive plan to deal with the al Qaeda sanctuary in northwest Pakistan."
More problematical at this point, though, is Pakistan, where the newly-elected Zardari regime will have to deal with Taliban forces who actually control territory in that country. This Dexter Filkins piece really says it all -- the Taliban is developing infrastructure in Pakistan and collaborating with Pakistani Intelligence in such a way that they have a free hand to move into Afghanistan at will. This knowledge makes any recommitment to Afghanistan much more worrisome than any 'limited' conflict there, and really requires a re-think of our approach to the entire region (see Abu Muqawama for more analysis). In terms of the presidential election, Obama has shown much more of willingness to look at the conflict holistically and recognize that fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda may necessitate fighting in Pakistan; this knowledge should lead us to reasses how we commit ourselves militarily in their neighborhood.
The Filkins piece, actually, is a rare one where the title can make most of the point: "Talibanistan" -- that's the territory the U.S. has to deal with.
--Tim Fernholz
