In his speech at the Republican National Convention, MittRomney avoided any mention of the war in Afghanistan. A week later, inaccepting the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama gave a pass tothe word “success” in describing the outcome of what he had once called the“war of necessity.”
The president asserted instead that “we’ve blunted theTaliban’s momentum.” That’s a retreat from “breaking the Taliban’s momentum” “the specific task Obama attached to announcing a surge of 33,000 troops tofight the officially right and good war in December 2009. And a step back froman objective that the incumbent had pointed to this May 1 as a missionaccomplished. Romney? In his clearest statement on Afghanistan, made inJanuary, he said, “We should not negotiate with the Taliban. We should defeatthe Taliban.” No plan explaining how to do that has been offered by theRepublican challenger. At the same time, he maintains “ in tune with Obama’stimeline for withdrawal “ that almost all US troops should be out ofAfghanistan in 2014.
Now, as a result of a series of attacks by Afghan soldiersand police forces on allied and U.S. troops, the NATO coalition has sharplycurtailed joint operations with the Afghans. This step raises doubts about theworkability of the allied training mission that is at the heart of the Americanexit strategy. You get the picture. Think of this headline three years down theroad: “Mystery Force Crushes Taliban, World Rejoices.”
For months, Romney, alongside Obama, has sustained thenon-discussion of a double concern that allied officials see in thepresidential election: whether America is now inured to failing to win its goodwars, and how much of an obligation remains in the minds of its twopresidential candidates that the United States must function as global good copand ultimate recourse in maintaining international stability.
Six years ago, Obama wrote that not only would the UnitedStates have to continue in its sheriff role, he insisted that “this will notchange “ nor should it.” Today, there are more than 80,000 US troops still inAfghanistan following the Obama surge (an effort that was subordinated to theadministration’s fixation with finding a date when US forces would begin toleave, according to Bob Woodward in his book “Obama’s Wars”). But the result oftheir mission clearly did not make good on former Defense Secretary RobertGates promise to the Afghanistan-bound troops, and America’s friends, that“we’re in this to win.”
Attempting to counsel Romney earlier this year on how toplay the situation in the face of an electorate that largely disapproves ofinvolvement in Afghanistan, Republican advisers urged him to condemn a drawdownthat “emboldens America’s adversaries and discourages its allies.” Romney’sexpressions of resolve, in fact, have topped out with flimsiness like, “Americamust lead the free world and the free world must lead the entire world.”(Reacting in the same rhetorical register to the terrorist attack on the USEmbassy in Libya, Obama exclaimed, “America will never retreat from theworld.”)
But Romney also appears to have decided that voters cannot handle“ and he won’t bring up “ what the American journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran,author of “Little America,” an incisive book about American engagement inAfghanistan, has called the “fundamental moral question” of theadministration’s “good war turned bad”: “How do you justify all the loss of thelife and limb of all those who 'surged’ if the path was really to exit?”
Rather than experiencing a campaign confrontation about thewar’s nonsuccess, Americans have gotten (and so far seemingly accepted) its evasion.Chandrasekaran even talks of “a conspiracy of silence” between Obama andRomney.
This is more certain: No one running for president shows anyinclination to talk about what becomes of a broken, corrupt and prospectivelydysfunctional country after 2014. Or the enormous costs that would be tied toAfghanistan’s continued maintenance by the United States and its allies. Or, inthe end, what the candidates’ flight from focusing more sharply on the war saysto the world about the wavering status of America as the single global forceable to say no to chaos. It tells us “that this is a much less safe world.” Thephrase belongs to Pierre Lellouche, who served as the former President NicolasSarkozy’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He said: “The Americans are increasingly going to bespectators. There’s no more money. We’re seeing America’s retreat into itself,with no more boots on the ground, but a reliance on military technology likedrones.” For another impression, I asked a European cabinet minister withexperience in Afghanistan. He did not want to be identified by name.Diplomatically, he expressed no sharp disillusionment about the US role. But hewound up saying that through the Afghan experience, “the concept of Americandetermination has been diminished.”
The presidential election campaign is confirming this as afact. As for the candidates and their notional duty to bring into discussionthe miserable reality of what The Associated Press calls “America’s forgottenwar,” abdication, at least for now, might be the best descriptive.
JohnVinocur is senior correspondent at the International Herald Tribune, reportingon matters ranging from politics and economics to sports and culture in Europe,Asia and the United States
