Earlier this month President Obama announced his plans for a new way forward in Afghanistan. He laid out clear objectives for a troop level increase, underscored the importance of strengthening Afghan security forces and outlined the strategic necessity of success in the region. I believe the President made a very compelling case for why it is absolutely critical that America defeat al Qaeda and prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies.
The most significant aspect of the President’s announcement was his call for a deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. forces and additional troops to be provided by our NATO partners and other international allies. While I would have been more comfortable with the original recommendation of General McChrystal to increase troops by 40,000, I am still pleased with the decision to bolster our presence in the region. The men and women of the Armed Forces are fighting a tough battle on multiple fronts against an increasingly sophisticated enemy. Providing additional manpower and resources to our troops is vitally important as we move forward.
I am, however, deeply troubled by the President’s suggestion that our troops be withdrawn after 18 months. While I have tremendous faith in the ability of the United States soldier to accomplish his or her mission, wars are not fought on timelines. Conditions on the ground and well-defined benchmarks should be the measure used when deciding if troops should come home - not arbitrary timelines.
By telegraphing our intention to abandon the battlefield based on the calendar rather than the progress of our mission, we simply embolden the terrorists to wait us out. Not only does this put our soldiers at greater risk, it also undermines the long term authority of the legitimate Afghan government. The bottom line is this: the terrorists must be defeated and if that takes longer than 18 months, and I strongly suspect it will, then we have to stay until the job is done.
The American public deserves political leadership that is as committed to winning this war as our soldiers are. After committing an additional 30,000 troops, the President has a responsibility to fully embrace his role as the Commander in Chief. This will entail rallying the public to support our troops, and building a genuine bi-partisan coalition in Congress to continue the hard work that lies ahead.
There is no doubt that the President has committed our nation more deeply to Afghanistan. It is my belief that we must move forward with determination and a will to win by dismissing arbitrary timelines that undermine the efforts of our forces and our allies. Our soldiers have shown both these qualities on the battlefield and now the President needs to follow their example.
Sending the Vice President to Poland and the Czech Republic this week could easily be another misstep by the Administration when it comes to handling relations with Central and Eastern Europe. Despite his seniority, the famously gaffe-prone Joe Biden may not be the wisest choice to handle Washington’s “damage control” exercise in Warsaw and Prague.
And damage has been done in abundance, not just to America’s diplomatic relations with Poland and the Czech Republic, but to its standing in this part of the world more broadly. President Obama’s abandonment of the Third Site missile defense agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic, hurriedly announced by the Administration on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet’s invasion of Poland, has led the Poles and Czechs to conclude that their interests can be discarded at will. It has also left them wondering whether transatlantic security really is indivisible, or whether some countries matter more to Washington than its fellow NATO partners.
The 2009 Transatlantic Trends survey revealed that Central and Eastern Europeans see America in a less positive light than Western Europeans, and are significantly less enthusiastic about Obama’s conduct of foreign policy than their Western counterparts. Turning this around will be no easy feat and it will certainly take more than a two-day visit by the Vice President and an offer to host small parts of America’s revised missile defense architecture.
Poland and the Czech Republic’s interest in hosting the Third Site missile defenses was always about a durable U.S. commitment to Europe and to their Central and Eastern European allies. Poland has long sought to layer? its relationship with America by complementing its NATO relationship with a stronger bilateral relationship. It has over 2,000 troops in Afghanistan and has made clear that it would seriously consider a U.S. request for additional troops – but only if it feels secure at home. Having Washington talk to Moscow more than it speaks to Warsaw does not build confidence.
For Joe Biden’s trip to be a success, he will have to back up Obama’s vague assurances with actual deliverables. There is plenty he can do on the security front with Warsaw, honoring elements of the package-deal that Poland signed with the previous Administration other than missile defense. The Administration can also put its weight behind Congressional review of the Visa Waiver Program, which excludes Poles from visa-free entry to the U.S., but includes most other EU countries including the Czech Republic.
By itself, Biden’s visit will not ameliorate the damage done to Polish-Czech-American relations by the Administration’s disastrous handling of the Third Site missile defense announcement and its overly-cozy relationship with Moscow. Now is the time for Biden to offer concrete measures to advance the Polish-American and Czech –American relationships.