photocredit: The US Army (flickr)
Blink and you will miss it. Two of the most important foreign policy events this year are about to happen. Afghanistan and Iran are at the forefront of all the wonky talk, and for good reason. Last week, the drama at the G-20 summit left Iran looking more like the screw-up, immature brother of the family than ever before. Even though Obama wanted to wait a bit longer to disclose Iran’s secret nuclear facility, he did, and flanked by the support of the usual (UK, France) and unusual (Russia, and partially China) allies, he gave Iran a stern warning to quit their shenanigans.
Ahmedinejad then proceeded to launch a missile test the next day and declare that these missiles could easily reach Israel and some American bases. Hence, the immature label.
Ahmedinejad may have thought he was flexing muscle after Obama scolded him in public, but in reality he came off weaker than ever before. The “president” of Iran is coming off some of the most destabilizing months of his political career: a near revolution, dismal public support, an inexperienced cabinet, and an increasingly impatient international community. Even Russia, a loyal advocate of Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy, is distancing itself from the Persian trainwreck that is Ahmedinejad’s regime.
By reprimanding Iran and garnering more international support on the matter than ever before, Obama will be going into his meeting with the Iranian leader this week with enough leverage to twist his wrist a bit. The missile launch was expected. Ahmedinejad, like Kim Jong Il, relies a lot on his self-made image as the reckless rebel. The move was made out of weakness, not strength. Obama can capitalize on that stupid move.
Afghanistan is a similar thorn on Obama’s side. The report General McChrystal was supposed to deliver to Obama this week detailing a recommendation to increase troop levels was leaked last week by Bob Woodward, that old rascal from The Washington Post. Obama and McChrystal are having the first of five meetings on Afghanistan this week, deciding the troop and commitment level that sham democracy deserves.
No matter what Obama and McChrystal decide to do with Afghanistan, they will be criticized. The left wants less troops (or no troops, really) in Afghanistan; the right wants more. Either way, people will bring back a radioactive word: Vietnam.
The left is arguing increasing troop levels in Afghanistan is akin to the buildup in the early 60’s in Vietnam. Military advisors are being recommended for Afghanistan, similar to the military advisors sent by Kennedy to Vietnam before the war began, unsettling liberals even more. The right will undoubtedly call Afghanistan a Vietnam if troops are removed, saying we will lose like we did 40 years ago because of cowardice and poor leadership.
These next few weeks will set the tone for 2010. Troops are expected to withdraw from Iraq by August 2010, and military leadership there are sure it will happen. But will things change if Afghanistan needs more troops now, or no troops at all? Will Iraq be rushed to become a self-sustaining country sooner than previously planned? Or might Iraq be once again deemed necessary to occupy for geopolitical reasons after Obama talks to Iran? Stay tuned.
You might want to check these out, too:
Tags: afghanistan · ahmedinejad · iranNo Comments
0 responses so far ↓