Obama and the NATO General: Different views on Afghanistan

At the NATO summit in Chicago, President Obama emphasized the coming end of the war. But Marine Gen. John Allen, the NATO Commander in Afghanistan, said US troops will be fighting there through 2014.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
President Barack Obama talks with NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen during their meeting on the sidelines of the NATO Summit in Chicago, Sunday. Rasmussen said "There will be no rush for the exits," in Afghanistan, and said "Our goal, our strategy, our timetable remain unchanged."

President Obama, his re-election in the balance and polls showing Americans increasingly opposed to the war in Afghanistan no doubt on his mind, opened NATO’s Chicago summit Sunday emphasizing the day when “the Afghan war as we know it is over.”

But the NATO Commander in Afghanistan, Marine Gen. John Allen, had a different message. Noting “there is a narrative out there” that combat involving the US will end in 2013, General Allen said the reality is that US soldiers would be fighting right up until NATO ends its combat mission in December 2014.

The difference in the two men’s messages reflects their two different offices: One must appeal to voters who are anxious for the war to end, and the other must command a war taking into account the reality he confronts on the ground.

RECOMMENDED: How well do you know Afghanistan? Take our quiz.

The two interpretations, while not harmonious, are not contradictory. The statements came at a summit where leaders are expected to accelerate the handing over to the Afghans of the lead role in combat operations. That could happen by mid-2013. NATO leaders had already decided in 2010 to end the alliance’s combat mission in December 2014.

Obama did say, as he always does in speaking of Afghanistan, that “difficult days” still lie ahead. But his emphasis was elsewhere when he said the summit ending Monday was about “painting a vision post-2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the Afghan war as we understand it is over, but our commitment to friendship and partnership with Afghanistan continues.”

For his part, Allen acknowledged that the Afghans will take the lead of the war in the coming year, but he said “it doesn’t mean that we won’t be fighting, it doesn’t mean there won’t be combat,” he said.  That’s important, he added, “because there is a narrative out there that combat operations for the US stops at milestone 2013. That is not, in fact, correct.”

Allen also said that the scheduled drawdown of US forces to some 68,000 by September – in effect the withdrawal of the “surge” forces Obama ordered in late 2009 – does not mean the US and NATO won’t return to fight the Taliban in areas they’ve turned over to Afghan responsibility.

“If we detect that there is in fact a Taliban presence beginning to surge in behind our forces [who have left],” Allen said, “we have forces that are available that we intend to put in … to prevent that from happening.”

NATO leaders are also expressing optimism that the international community will come up with the money to keep the Afghan security forces up and running after 2014, but no hard figures are so far on the table.

At a press conference closing out the summit’s first day Sunday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was confident that international support would be forthcoming. “I’m optimistic about reaching the overall goal of finding about $4 billion a year for financing the Afghan Security Forces,” he said.

As one of the world’s poorest countries, Afghanistan simply does not generate the revenue to finance on its own the army and police it needs, especially as it faces an active and in some areas resurgent insurgency.

The Chicago summit is “not a pledging conference,” Mr. Rasmussen noted, but he said that a number of financial commitments already announced were encouraging. The early assumption is that the US would pick up about half of the annual $4 billion price tag, but some experts say it is unclear where the other $2 billion would come from.

Rasmussen said it would not just be NATO and partner countries who would be expected to contribute financially to Afghanistan’s security, but the wider international community. That is one reason, he said, that the NATO summit would not provide a full picture of funding for the security forces.

“Don’t expect exact figures from this summit,” he said, “but I am confident we are on the right track.” 

RECOMMENDED: How well do you know Afghanistan? Take our quiz.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Obama and the NATO General: Different views on Afghanistan
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today