The Taliban has called Obama’s bluff. Less than one week after the U.S. president’s speech on Afghanistan and his promises of gradual troop withdrawal and “initiatives that reconcile the Afghan people,” a ferocious attack on Kabul’s Intercontinental Hotel has considerably raised the stakes for any possible negotiation process.
The message of this all-out assault on a well-known fortress-like landmark of the Afghan capital is clear. If Obama pretended to sell the idea that the United States could somehow “declare victory and get out,” he’d better think twice. The Taliban can strike anywhere they want, whenever they want. The “tide of war” has not “receded.” There will be no gracious exit and smooth transition, and no easy transfer of responsibility between NATO and the Afghan government.
Of course, there’s also an element of bluff and pure propaganda in this audacious strike. Kabul is not ready to fall tomorrow, but the Taliban’s point was seizing the agenda and instilling fear and confusion about what might happen in the future. In this, they are certainly no less credible than the U.S. president when he declares that the United States is “meeting its goals” in Afghanistan and “starting this drawdown from a position of strength.”
The truth is that even if the tide of war is not really receding, American “messianic fever” is certainly ebbing, as military analyst and retired U.S. Army officer Andrew Bacevich observes. Osama bin Laden is out of the picture. In its purpose as well as its implementation, the Libyan campaign is totally unconvincing. There is war weariness and nation-building fatigue in the air.
This fatigue is not only felt in the opinion polls. In the aisles of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans are beginning to raise serious questions about their nation's propensity for multiple, open-ended wars. There are concerns for the Constitution and the abuse of executive power, worries about the mounting cost of foreign interventions and urges to reassess strategic priorities.
According to Bacevich, the positive echo that his own musings about American imperial overstretch elicit from serving officers suggests that the military itself is doing some hard thinking. Some of this soul-searching can also be seen in an interesting document recently published by the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars. It is entitled “A National Strategic Narrative” and written under the pseudonym “Mr. Y” by two seniors assistants to the Joints Chiefs of Staff.
In substance, says Mr. Y, it might be wise to spend more on schools and less on guns: “By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in the education and training of young Americans – the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers, inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents of tomorrow – we are truly investing in our ability to successfully compete in and influence the strategic environment of the future.”
Intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services is the priority of the day, Mr. Y continues. Which of course sounds a lot like Obama’s Afghanistan speech when he says that “it is time to focus on nation building here at home.”
A bizarre figure recently uncovered by independent journalist Dave Lindorff is worth quoting in this context. The United States military is spending $20.2 billion a year just to provide air-conditioning for its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. $20.2 billion is more than the entire budget of the state of North Carolina. It is about one-fourth of the budget of the Department of Health and Human Services. It is two-and-a-half times the size of the federal Head Start program of early childhood education. And according to Lindorff, it could probably fund the school budget deficit in almost all the school districts in the nation.
What about America’s leadership and projection in the world then? Let’s hear Mr. Y’s opinion: “We needn’t seek the world’s friendship or proselytize the virtues of our society. Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole, or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions… We will pursue our national interests and let others pursue theirs...”
This is all very inspiring, but coming back to the grim reality of the “AfPak” region, one wonders what al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Pakistani intelligence service or the Indian generals would make of such lofty aspirations. No doubt that they will take Mr. Y at his words and “draw their own conclusions” based upon America’s actions.
And they also know something for sure. In the corridors of power, the think tanks and the lobbying agencies of Washington, there are still plenty of folks for whom war fever is a permanent condition. And there’s plenty of ways each of the regional players in the AfPak maze can use this fever for their own agendas. America is not out the woods yet, and it will need more than paeans to the virtues of soft power to get rid of the lingering consequences of its imperial hubris.
Left at the Crossroads: The last communist Brahmins
Left at the Crossroads: Obama, Netanyahu, and the game of pretense
Left at the Crossroads: Democracy and sectarian strife in Egypt
Left at the Crossroads: Doubts and certainties in Peru’s presidential race
Left at the Crossroads: Asad’s broken promises
Left at the Crossroads: Obama’s disappointing Latin trip
Left at the Crossroads: Pakistan’s schizoid path to darkness
Left at the Crossroads: And what about Iran?
Left at the Crossroads: Revolutions and the new media
Left at the Crossroads: The tiger and the cage
Left at the Crossroads: Tunisia and the quality of Arab despair
Left at the Crossroads: Turkish paradoxes
Left at the Crossroads: The last tango in Delhi
Left at the Crossroads: Cuban reform and the international scene
Left at the Crossroads: Asian ambiguities and the new Great Game
Left at the Crossroads: Pension reform – what the French really want
Left at the Crossroads: World’s next hotspot – Kashmir
Left at the Crossroads: Ogling the poor
Left at the Crossroads: Remaking the mob in Latin America
*
Globalization might already sound like a stale catchword, but the new interconnected reality it describes still has surprising tricks up its sleeves. So what do you do when you’re a leftish French writer born in Africa and living in South America, with a background in Slavic Studies, a worried fascination for emerging Asian powers, and interests ranging from classical political philosophy to Bollywood film music? Read, travel, wonder. And send scattered dispatches from modernity’s frontlines.
Marc Saint-Upéry is a French journalist and political analyst living in Ecuador since 1998. He writes about political philosophy, international relations and development issues for various French and Latin American publications and in the international magazines Le Monde Diplomatique and Nueva Sociedad. He is the author of El Sueño de Bolívar: El Desafío de las izquierdas Sudamericanas (Bolivar’s Dream: the Left’s challenge in South America).
