.OBAMA'S AFGHAN COMMITMENT
OTTAWA - They loved him in Berlin, but will they be able to say no if he calls for their sons and daughters to fight, and risk their lives, on Afghanistan's bloodiest battlefields?
With Barack Obama the likely victor in Tuesday's U.S. presidential election, many are excited about the new American face he will bring to world affairs.
For Canada, there is no more urgent need than to bolster military resources in Afghanistan, particularly to prod a few reluctant NATO allies into sharing the burden in fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan's violent south.
Obama has raised expectations about a renewed American focus in Afghanistan, suggesting recently that as many as 12,000 additional U.S. troops be deployed in the region.
"I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights," Obama told the Democratic national convention in August.
But implicit in Obama's commitment to refocus on Afghanistan is something else: that he may come calling on America's friends to do more as well.
That could put renewed pressure on Western European NATO members, such as Italy, Spain and Germany, where Obama addressed an adoring throng of 200,000 in Berlin this summer.
An Obama presidency could get Canada the help in Afghanistan that it has been seeking for so long, said Charles Doran, director of the Center of Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
That's because an Obama administration and the Conservative government of Stephen Harper would find themselves on the same page when it comes to the sharing of the combat burden within NATO.
The Harper government has repeatedly criticized reluctant Western European allies for not lifting the restrictions that prevent their armies from fighting in the south, particularly in Kandahar, the hotbed of the current insurgency.
Doran said that the departure of George W. Bush removes a significant bone of contention for many American allies when it comes to answering Washington's call for military help.
"If their anxiety about Bush and their pleasure at the thought of Obama becoming president has meaning beyond just rhetoric, but has policy meaning, then I think they would have a very hard time turning him down in terms of a NATO effort in Afghanistan," said Doran.
"The grounds that they would have to say no would be almost nil."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to play down American military expectations ahead of Obama's historic campaign stop in Berlin in July.
"I will make it clear that Germany is not shirking deeper involvement, but also make very clear our limits in the same way as I do with the current president," Merkel said before Obama's arrival in Germany this summer.
But as Obama made a pitch of greater transatlantic harmony, he said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida."
While increasing troop levels in Afghanistan is crucial, most people now agree that a broader regional diplomatic effort, with a focus on Pakistan, is the key to long-term success.
"Mr. Obama has brought more clarity and more focus on what he intends to do in Afghanistan and with Pakistan, and the overall strategic objectives of bringing security and governance and development to Afghanistan," said Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.
"Mr. Obama has expressed a clear understanding of the regional complexities that affect Afghanistan."
Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the architect of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended the Bosnian war, has argued that a counter-insurgency effort alone would not solve Afghanistan's woes.
"It will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbours a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran - as well as China, India and Russia. But the most important neighbour is, of course, Pakistan, which can destabilize Afghanistan at will - and has," Holbrooke wrote in a recent edition of the journal, Foreign Affairs.
Holbrooke defended Obama's call for the U.S. to open diplomatic channels with Iran, Afghanistan's western neighbour, something John McCain has repeatedly criticized as naive and weak.
"This position is contradicted by decades of U.S. diplomacy with adversaries, through which U.S. leaders, backed by strength and power, reached agreements without weakening U.S. national security. Diplomacy is not appeasement," said Holbrooke.
Of course, Obama is also popular in Canada, which raises the question of whether he might want our troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond our current 2011 deadline for withdrawal.
Doran said he expects Obama and Harper to simply avoid the topic for now.
"There would be a lot of grounds for communication between the two governments, perhaps more intense than exists currently," said Doran.
"What they want to do is focus on what they want to do in 2009. That's where all the focus will be. There will be no discussion of 2011, on either side."
Canada
Joke for the day
With Barack Obama the likely victor in Tuesday's U.S. presidential election, many are excited about the new American face he will bring to world affairs.
For Canada, there is no more urgent need than to bolster military resources in Afghanistan, particularly to prod a few reluctant NATO allies into sharing the burden in fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan's violent south.
Obama has raised expectations about a renewed American focus in Afghanistan, suggesting recently that as many as 12,000 additional U.S. troops be deployed in the region.
"I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights," Obama told the Democratic national convention in August.
But implicit in Obama's commitment to refocus on Afghanistan is something else: that he may come calling on America's friends to do more as well.
That could put renewed pressure on Western European NATO members, such as Italy, Spain and Germany, where Obama addressed an adoring throng of 200,000 in Berlin this summer.
An Obama presidency could get Canada the help in Afghanistan that it has been seeking for so long, said Charles Doran, director of the Center of Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.
That's because an Obama administration and the Conservative government of Stephen Harper would find themselves on the same page when it comes to the sharing of the combat burden within NATO.
The Harper government has repeatedly criticized reluctant Western European allies for not lifting the restrictions that prevent their armies from fighting in the south, particularly in Kandahar, the hotbed of the current insurgency.
Doran said that the departure of George W. Bush removes a significant bone of contention for many American allies when it comes to answering Washington's call for military help.
"If their anxiety about Bush and their pleasure at the thought of Obama becoming president has meaning beyond just rhetoric, but has policy meaning, then I think they would have a very hard time turning him down in terms of a NATO effort in Afghanistan," said Doran.
"The grounds that they would have to say no would be almost nil."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel tried to play down American military expectations ahead of Obama's historic campaign stop in Berlin in July.
"I will make it clear that Germany is not shirking deeper involvement, but also make very clear our limits in the same way as I do with the current president," Merkel said before Obama's arrival in Germany this summer.
But as Obama made a pitch of greater transatlantic harmony, he said: "The Afghan people need our troops and your troops, our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida."
While increasing troop levels in Afghanistan is crucial, most people now agree that a broader regional diplomatic effort, with a focus on Pakistan, is the key to long-term success.
"Mr. Obama has brought more clarity and more focus on what he intends to do in Afghanistan and with Pakistan, and the overall strategic objectives of bringing security and governance and development to Afghanistan," said Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.
"Mr. Obama has expressed a clear understanding of the regional complexities that affect Afghanistan."
Richard Holbrooke, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the architect of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended the Bosnian war, has argued that a counter-insurgency effort alone would not solve Afghanistan's woes.
"It will also require regional agreements that give Afghanistan's neighbours a stake in the settlement. That includes Iran - as well as China, India and Russia. But the most important neighbour is, of course, Pakistan, which can destabilize Afghanistan at will - and has," Holbrooke wrote in a recent edition of the journal, Foreign Affairs.
Holbrooke defended Obama's call for the U.S. to open diplomatic channels with Iran, Afghanistan's western neighbour, something John McCain has repeatedly criticized as naive and weak.
"This position is contradicted by decades of U.S. diplomacy with adversaries, through which U.S. leaders, backed by strength and power, reached agreements without weakening U.S. national security. Diplomacy is not appeasement," said Holbrooke.
Of course, Obama is also popular in Canada, which raises the question of whether he might want our troops to stay in Afghanistan beyond our current 2011 deadline for withdrawal.
Doran said he expects Obama and Harper to simply avoid the topic for now.
"There would be a lot of grounds for communication between the two governments, perhaps more intense than exists currently," said Doran.
"What they want to do is focus on what they want to do in 2009. That's where all the focus will be. There will be no discussion of 2011, on either side."
Canada
Joke for the day
posted by madtom at 11:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home