Both General Stanley McChrystal, the senior commander on the ground in Afghanistan, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior military advisor to the president of the United States, have now publicly stated that we need more boots on the ground. In contrast, in the last few days both the President and the Vice President have stated that they are in rush to make a decision; that the advice of their senior most military commanders are just one source of input and that they need to “study” the decision more closely. Indecision in the White House is a double blow to US security.
First, it sends a strong signal to America’s allies and to our enemies that we may be wavering in our support for the mission in Afghanistan. Second, the longer we wait to reinforce the troops that are already there, the more those troops are at risk.
American resolve in Afghanistan is the irreplaceable ingredient for victory. Without American support the NATO commitment will dissolve; building up the Afghan military and police, civil infrastructure, and local economy won’t happen; the Pakistan government will fulfill its commitments to root out the Taliban and al Qaeda. In short, without a full US effort the mission there will fail.
Those that want to cut and run in Afghanistan, those that applaud the Administration’s commitment to half-measures, don’t spend much time discussing the cost of failure….and the cost is pretty high, turning Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al Qaeda will lead to another 9/11; risk destabilizing the region and potentially to a war between Pakistan and India; and reenergize Bin Laden’s war on the West. That is too high a price to pay.
President Obama’s decision to abandon plans for basing elements of the U.S. missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is entirely a political one - in order to appease Russia. This decision is a strategic victory for the Kremlin, which is determined to have a sphere of privileged interest in its near-abroad. It represents the shameful abandonment of two of America’s closest allies in Central and Eastern Europe, and in future, America’s allies will have cause to question the integrity and credibility of American promises.
It also leaves the U.S. and Europe more vulnerable to the threat of ballistic missile attack. The Third Site installations proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic - Ground-Based Midcourse Defense interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic - were cost-effective, proven technologies which offered protection from long range missile attack to both Europe and the United States. The alternative deployments which President Obama has said he will now pursue will not satisfy those criteria.
Neither has Washington secured any great concession from Russia. There is scant evidence that Moscow intends to deliver anything credible in return for Washington’s abandonment of the Third Site, especially with regard to the growing Iranian threat. There is equally little indication that the Obama Administration’s risky policy of engagement with Iran is working either.
The decision – to concentrate resources defending against short range missiles and not field defenses against long range missile attacks – makes no sense. To be truly strategic about national and international security, the United States must defend against current and future threats. Presenting a choice between defending against short or long range missile attack is a false one. Ballistic missile threats can emerge with little advanced warning, and as Admiral Mike Mullen (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) recently stated, Iran has already amassed sufficient uranium to build an atomic bomb.
Defending against short-range missile attack is hugely important. But it can not come at the expense of protecting America and Europe from other threats. At present Europe has no capacity to defend itself against long-range missile attack while America only has limited defenses against such an attack. This undermines the concept of indivisible transatlantic security and enervates NATO’s Article V security guarantees.
This is a loss-leader for President Obama: a strategic loss, a security loss, a diplomatic loss and a major loss for America’s prestige on the world stage.