In his usual well-spoken manner, President Barack Obama told America of his plans for a 'significant' withdrawal of U.S. forces in Afghanistan on Wednesday night.
His withdrawal plan calls for nearly 10,000 of the nearly 70,000 troops currently stationed in the country to be returned home by the end of the year, and another 23,000 to be brought back stateside by summer's end in 2012. The total drawdown of 33,000 will remove all the remaining troops from the 2009 'surge', and start the end of America's involvement in Afghanistan. Or, in the plainer but more powerful terms the President used, “the tide of war is receding” at long last.
Immediate criticism came from officials and lawmakers from both parties, and two unlikely allies joined to attack the President's plan. In the current political climate, candidates can be penalized by their constituency for showing any signs of wavering from the extreme fringe of either liberalism or conservatism, and the President is maybe the most vulnerable in that regard.
Nancy Pelosi led a group of Democrats who called the withdrawal too small and too slow, while Sen. John McCain(R-AZ) and House Speaker John Boehner(R-OH) complained that the drawdown is too big and too fast. With Osama bin Laden no longer a threat and Afghanistan no longer a terrorist hotbed after 10 long years of war, the conflict has become increasingly unpopular in both middle America and the halls of Washington. So much so that hell temporarily froze over and Tea Party Republicans sided with Democrats in calling for a change to U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
Those opposed to winding down of the war are holding that stance in defiance to the very real economic issues facing the United States. $443 billion has already been spent ridding the country of the Taliban over the last ten years and over $1 trillion total between the conflict there and the effort in Iraq. Though there will likely be no major economic impact from the returning soldiers' wallets, the money saved from no longer having to support the $10 billion a month engagement will allow America to stop crawling and start climbing out of the 'Great Recession'.
There will of course be consequences for American withdrawal, and Afghanistan may or not maintain the security earned by over 13,000 U.S. casualties, but we cannot build them or any other nation before building our own. The reduction may be no more than a political move with re-election not extremely far off, but it may also be a sign that Washington can and will listen to the desires of the American people when they make good sense.
In all likelihood, few of those opposed to the war's end actually believe that continual U.S. involvement will be beneficial in any pragmatic sense. Arguments over the size and timetable of the withdrawal seem like the usual petty games for political points played in Washington, rather than true disagreement over whether or not American troops should remain in a war without a clear direction.
Having already largely failed to deliver his campaign promise of ending the war in Afghanistan, any news from the White House of progress towards that goal is sweet music to a nation wracked by economic crisis, political division, and growing religious unrest.
The size and shape of the withdrawal may not suit the palette of everyone with a stake in it, but a decade after the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001, it may let America get some feeling of closure.
No comments:
Post a Comment