The World from Berlin 'Obama's Speech Was an Admission of Failure'
German troops in Afghanistan through night vision goggles.
Foto: FABRIZIO BENSCH/ REUTERSIt is said that, if no one agrees with you, then you're probably right. Should that be true, then US President Barack Obama can rest peacefully following his Tuesday evening speech at West Point in which he announced that the US would be sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and would begin bringing them home again in 2011.
He has been blasted from the right for daring to give voice to a timeline for withdrawal. Attaching an end date to American engagement in Afghanistan, so goes the argument, will only encourage the insurgents. The left, meanwhile, wants an immediate pullout, damn the consequences. Obama's decision to bolster the US presence in Afghanistan seems sure to irk erstwhile supporters.
In Europe, however , while opinions on the president's speech were just as divided, most on Wednesday were busy wondering whether Obama's decision means that they really have to do more in Afghanistan. The White House is hoping for between 5,000 and 7,000 additional troops from America's NATO allies. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday that he was confident that Europe would come up with at least 5,000.
But only very few European countries immediately indicated that they would increase their Afghanistan contingents. Great Britain said it would send 500 additional soldiers, Poland pledged 600 and Italy also said more were forthcoming, though declined to say how many. But both Berlin and Paris have reacted with skepticism and said they prefer to wait until the Afghanistan summit set to take place in London in late January.
Still, the question will likely not be one that Germany and France can avoid indefinitely. German commentators address the issue on Thursday.
The center-right daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"One can only hope that the German government doesn't intend to wait for the London meeting to begin thinking about its Afghanistan strategy. It has long been known that Obama was going to raise troop numbers. It would be a mistake and a major blow to the trans-Atlantic alliance were America left alone in the final push for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The fate of nuclear armed Pakistan -- closely connected to the fight in Afghanistan -- should concern the West at least as much as to whether there will be schools for girls in Kabul in the future."
"But German political leaders seem to be completely overburdened merely by the task of extending the already-existing Afghanistan mandate.... America is not sending 30,000 soldiers to direct traffic in Afghanistan. The insurgents certainly know that. But in Germany, the biggest worry appears to be whether stores here will be allowed to stay open on Sunday or not."
The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"The German government should now see that the new US strategy is based entirely on a sober analysis of the Afghanistan war. Yet, without pathos, without the myth of the good warrior, Germans wouldn't be there in the first place. Eight years ago, the government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder never could have sent the first German troops without these fairy tales. Now, Schröder's successor Angela Merkel is concerned about losing what little support remains for Germany's mission in Afghanistan."
"Obama didn't just announce a rapid increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan and the beginning of the drawdown in 2011. He also redefined the war and its goals: no longer are democracy and human rights the issue. Nor is the Bush administration dream of a military fight for a better world. Instead of a vision, Obama presented a strategy. One doesn't have to agree with it. Indeed the US president himself doesn't seem entirely convinced either. But at least Obama has told the public what his plan is. And even more important, he clearly listed the consequences. Obama's German allies are far, far away from taking such a step."
The conservative daily Die Welt writes:
"George W. Bush made enormous mistakes. But when the former US president ordered the surge in Iraq, he didn't attach an expiration date in the same breath. Still, Obama's 'planistan' is persuasive in that he distanced himself from overly ambitious war aims. The establishment of a model democracy is no longer a goal, rather the US hopes to create a minimum of security and to eliminate al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Taliban supporters are to be converted -- read: bought off."
"Barack Obama is right: Afghanistan is not lost. But it would be disastrous to declare victory prematurely to enable a pullout. For the US and its allies, including Germany, there is no alternative to increasing troop numbers and redoubling their effort."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"Instead of posing as a visionary, Obama played the role of a sober realist in his West Point speech. He no longer spoke of a victory in Afghanistan, rather he talked of bringing 'this war to a successful conclusion.' It was a clear recognition of the facts on the ground. Afghanistan is not a classic war in which one can "break the enemy's will" as Republican Senator John McCain is now demanding. The situation in Afghanistan is so confusing and -- for foreign powers -- so uncontrollable that it will be difficult enough for the Western alliance to achieve even its most modest of aims."
"NATO has failed to reach the formerly espoused goal of introducing a stable, Western-style democracy to Afghanistan. Obama's West Point speech was an admission of this failure. It would be success enough if Afghanistan's government were able, in a few years time, to fight the Taliban to a stale mate so that the country could no longer be used by terrorists as a base for operations. The question is whether the planned measures are enough to reach even that goal."
