This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 27, 2009 - A former Bush administration official says that President Barack Obama's newly announced policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan is good and should succeed -- if he can find the money, resources and people needed to make it work.
But, said Thomas A. Schweich, a visiting professor of law and ambassador in residence at Washington University, the approach is not significantly different from that of Obama's predecessor.
"He is basically putting the Bush program on steroids," said Schweich, who was a special ambassador to Afghanistan.
Obama said Friday morning that the United States would devote more money and more troops to the area in a renewed effort to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Qaeda and its operations.
Schweich said that based on the broad-brush description of the program, it sounds good, with its emphasis on more troops and more development.
The problem with making it work, he added, will be finding the right mix of people and the support they need.
"You need people with the right skills," Schweich said, "and with every person you send out there, you have to give them security. You can't just fly people into places that are crawling with Taliban."
Though too many factors are in play to put a timetable on the effort, Schweich said it could be accomplished in less than five years under the right conditions.
Asked why the Bush administration couldn't make a similar program work, he said politics in Washington played a big role.
"Even when the Republicans controlled Congress, everything was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq all the time," he said. "The war was going terribly.
"By the time people woke up and saw that more was needed in Afghanistan, you had a Democratic Congress and a Republican president and everyone was at loggerheads."
For Washington University professor Robert Canfield, the most positive aspect of Obama's announcement may be its promise of a long-term commitment to the troubled region.
Canfield, a professor of anthropology who has long studied the region, said that helping to defeat a faraway enemy in a remote part of the world requires the kind of sustained effort that has too often been avoided by the United States.
"Americans like to think of going in and fixing things very quickly, then getting out," Canfield said. "I don't think that will happen in this place. We have to make a long-term commitment to solve the problem. I think it can be done."
Contrasting the Obama strategy with that of the previous White House, Canfield said: "The Bush administration was never much interested in the situation in Afghanistan. They kind of took it for granted and went off to Iraq. But the price for that is the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been flourishing."
Why should Americans care what happens so far away? Canfield noted that Central Asia is a large source of undeveloped natural resources that many countries in the area, such as Russia, China, Japan, India and Pakistan, would love to take advantage of.
Add to that the role of Afghanistan in the world drug trade and the unstable political conditions in that part of the world, and the stake that the United States has in stability there should become clear, he said.
"The nature of the new world is that a great deal of focus will be on that area," Canfield said. "We have to recognize that Afghanistan is no longer a faraway place. It is a strategic corridor for the flow of important natural resources.
"Establishing state building, however that is done, is crucial. We have a vital interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan being stable and intolerant of those people who would like to destroy our country. Until that happens, we have to make that kind of commitment."
Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, praised Obama's regional strategy for the area but cautioned that "the devil is in the details."
One key factor in succeeding, Bond added, will be for the United States to gain the support of local leaders so that people living in the area get what they really need and not just what the Obama administration thinks they need.
"There are a number of specific steps that must be taken so we don't just win the battle," Bond said, "but we win the war."
Also pleased with the Obama statement is Fahim Mohammad, an owner of the Sameem restaurant in south St. Louis, who came here from Afghanistan in 1991.
Calling the change in strategy "very, very positive," Mohammad said the U.S. approach should succeed if it is based more on economic development and strengthening border security than on killing people.
"As long as civilian casualties are avoided or kept to a minimum," he said, "I applaud the United States for making a very strong effort to bring peace and stability."
He said that people in the region are driven not so much by religious ideology as by desperation, so an emphasis on economic interests and education should bring positive results.
"I'm not saying it will happen overnight," Mohammad said. "God knows how long it is going to take. But look at where Afghanistan is now as opposed to before Sept. 11. Things are moving in the right direction, even though there is still some volatility and some challenges that the coalition forces face.
"If they coordinate all these tasks, I am pretty sure they will be successful."
To read more:
In a speech Friday morning, the president announced a new policy that is a sharp break from the Bush administration. It includes committing at least 4,000 more U.S. troops to train Afghan forces plus more civilian aid to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" al-Aqeda. Calling the situation "increasingly perilous," Obama also talked about setting benchmarks for progress and help for Pakistan in fighting terrorist forces. | Washington Post
Fearing that it could get bogged down in Afghanistan and Pakistan but also worried about walking away, the Obama administration is charting a careful middle course in the region. | Politico