» This Story:Read +| Comments
Archive   |   Biography   |   RSS Feed   |   Opinions Home   |   Post Global

Campaigning for Afghanistan

American, German and Afghan soldiers survey a fuel tanker that was bombed by a NATO jet last week in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The airstrike killed about 90 Afghans.
American, German and Afghan soldiers survey a fuel tanker that was bombed by a NATO jet last week in Kunduz, Afghanistan. The airstrike killed about 90 Afghans. (Associated Press)
  Enlarge Photo    

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Perhaps this summer's record bloodshed did it, or perhaps it was the disappointment of the election, with its low turnout, accompanying violence and allegations of fraud. Whatever the reason, the Afghan war is suddenly at the center of political debate in several Western countries. At stake are not merely tactics and strategy but a far more fundamental question: Should we still be in Afghanistan at all?

This Story

Given how different the political cultures of North America and Europe are sometimes alleged to be, the similarity of the arguments is striking. In the States, George Will has just pointed out that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has lasted longer than its participation in World Wars I and II combined. In Germany, the defense minister caused an uproar by predicting that German troops might be in Afghanistan for another decade; opposition leaders immediately started calling for a much faster withdrawal. Faced with public disapproval, the Canadians have had to promise to withdraw troops by 2011. The Dutch are supposed to pull out in 2010. At a conference I attended in Amsterdam last weekend, a large audience cheered when a panelist denounced the war. Demands for a time frame -- "two more years and then out" -- can be heard almost everywhere.

Equally universal (and bipartisan) are complaints that the war's aims are unclear or unrealistic. A British defense official resigned last week, saying he no longer believed the nation would accept the government's justifications for the war, which have ranged from "fighting terrorists" to controlling heroin exports. Tom Friedman this week demanded to know "what it will cost, how much time it could take, what U.S. interests make it compelling." Others grumble that we should be focused on the "real" problems, such as Pakistan, or on an "achievable" solution, whatever that may be.

Which is, if you think about, all rather strange, since the goals of the war have never been in doubt in any European or North American capital. "Winning" means we leave with a minimally acceptable government in place; "losing" means the Taliban takes over and al-Qaeda comes back. No one has ever pretended it would be easy. But this is a war that has never been properly explained to most of the populations fighting it. For years it has simply been the "good war," as opposed to the "bad war" in Iraq, and no one felt the need to argue further.

The results of this silence are most visible in those European countries whose people have been conned into believing that their troops aren't really fighting in Afghanistan but, rather, participating in an extensive armed charity operation. Germans, for example, were deeply disturbed to learn that a German commander called for the NATO airstrike that killed some 90 Afghans in Kunduz last week. This news surprised those Germans who thought their troops in Afghanistan were doing reconstruction work. Americans seemed shocked to discover that Marines were fighting this summer to retake previously safe areas, that the election was not going smoothly and that the government of President Hamid Karzai was corrupt. All of that has been clear for some time. But who was talking about it?

Following the lead of one of the region's most clairvoyant experts, Ahmed Rashid, I would argue that the situation in Afghanistan is not yet hopeless. As I wrote on the eve of the election, there is still a definite Afghan majority that wants not only peace but also some version of democracy. The central government still has a modicum of legitimacy, though it may not last long. The plan to increase troop levels in the near future to give the Afghan army time to grow stronger in the long term is not naive, particularly if accompanied by sensible investments in roads and agriculture. But such a plan cannot be carried out without public support, and public support will not be forthcoming unless politicians agitate for it.

This, then, is the moment for Barack Obama to demonstrate that he knows how to persuade. One or two quick trips to Europe and another behind-the-scenes plea for "more troops" aren't going to do it: Europeans may like Obama better than George W. Bush, but they don't yet believe he is any more committed to Afghanistan than his predecessor was. Nor will Americans be convinced by a speech or two, however soaring the rhetoric or elegant the turns of phrase.

On both sides of the Atlantic, Obama needs to cajole and convince, to produce plans and evidence, to show he has gathered the best people and the most resources possible -- to campaign, in other words, and campaign hard. If the health-care debate will determine his domestic fortunes, the outcome in Afghanistan will make or break his foreign policy. He has said many times that he supports the Afghan war in principle. Now we'll see whether he supports it in practice.

applebaumletters@washpost.com


» This Story:Read +| Comments

More Washington Post Opinions

PostPartisan

Post Partisan

Quick takes from The Post's opinion writers.

Washington Sketch

Washington Sketch

Dana Milbank writes about political theater in the capital.

Tom Toles

Tom Toles

See his latest editorial cartoon.

© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity