|
The criticism directed at the Obama administration by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who was the commander of the US forces in Afghanistan, have resonated in Turkey as in the US.
|
What is more interesting is that Afghan President Hamid Karzai promptly announced that he totally agrees with Gen. McChrystal and that his comments and approach are justified.
Some commentators believed that US President Barack Obama could fire McChrystal, exactly like President Harry Truman, who sacked Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1951, right in the middle of the Korean War. Now, as then, the underlying reasons for the crisis of confidence between the US administration and the US military command are important.
Gen. McChrystal believes that he needs more troops to stabilize Afghanistan. This point of view is also shared by NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The latter probably thinks that if the US sends additional troops, then the pressure on NATO’s European partners will decrease. In other words, he prefers to see the US taking the lion’s share of the sacrifices and tries to save Europe as much as possible from the costs of war, which include the loss of lives and huge amounts of money.
Afghanistan’s enormous problems are no secret. If you add Pakistan to this picture, because of the Taliban’s influence in this country, one can easily notice that the destabilized area is bigger than once imagined. President Obama has found himself in a difficult position as he is unable to keep his promise of ensuring stability without waging war. His popularity has already suffered because of his healthcare policy, the nuclear crisis with Iran and the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, which was caused by BP. President Obama had previously declared his intention to transfer US troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and to decrease the overall number of US troops present in both countries. However, Iraq is in a governmental crisis, and long-expected stability still seems far away. That is why transferring US troops to Afghanistan will not be easy. Nonetheless, the need for additional forces grows with each passing day as the existing troops feel more and more unsafe.
It’s not known whether more troops will bring more stability to Afghanistan, but it’s sure that the already existing troops are under great risk. This paradox exacerbates the tension between the Obama team and the US military command. The latter doesn’t agree with the Obama administration, especially when it suggests that the best solution is to convince the Afghan and Pakistani leaders to discuss and find a compromise.
One must also emphasize the role of some American political actors who are behind the propaganda that Obama is an inexperienced and incapable leader who fails to manage the situation. They hope to damage Obama’s credibility and join the chorus of those who ask for more troops to Afghanistan. One mustn’t believe that war-mongering lobbies have simply stopped acting just because Obama has become president. As these lobbies believe that military methods are the only way to handle the world’s problems, they try to make Obama adopt a foreign policy based on war and conflict. For example, they are convinced that Iran must be stopped by the US through military methods no matter what, and their second best option is to push Israel to launch an attack to Iran on the US’s behalf.
Probably the best way out for Obama is to expand the international coalition around him. To achieve that, he needs his Middle Eastern friends more than ever.
