Withdrawal in 2014?

One of the most consistent issues surrounding the presidential campaigns has been the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. After 11 years, the general consensus is that the time has come for American troops to leave the war-ridden country. Obama’s initiative has been stated consistently throughout his campaign, and that is the promise that he would bring troops home in 2014. In the final presidential debate, Romney made it clear that he was fully behind the 2014 deadline; however, he reiterated that he would consult with ground commanders before completing the withdrawal. The governor’s statement, without much surprise, was quite vague and did not encompass the full extent of possibilities with seeking advice from ground commanders before withdrawal.

On her “CNN Fact Check” article, Jennifer Rizzo of CNN fully articulated Romney’s stance on the 2014 deadline. Rizzo begins by refuting Obama’s claim that Romney has changed sides regarding the withdrawal by stating that Romney began his support for the 2014 deadline as early as last year. What is interesting to note though, is that Romney has always responded with a caveat in which he said that he would consult with commanders on the field before giving a green light for a withdrawal. Rizzo explained this notion to leave the possibility of leaving troops in Afghanistan if needed. Although Obama’s strategy is to leave 10,000 to 15,000 troops behind following the withdrawal, Romney’s assertion does not leave a clear number. Rizzo concluded the article by explaining Romney’s disagreement with Obama was aimed towards the announcement of the deadline, stating that “the Taliban may not have watches, but they do have calendars”.

The full explanation of Romney’s caveat, however, was adequately provided during the vice presidential debate by the governor’s running mate, Paul Ryan. Paul explained that announcing a date of an unconditional withdrawal will give the Taliban, and other terrorist organizations operating in the region, incentive to simply wait out the remaining two years. Congressman Ryan also elaborated on the initiative to consult with ground commanders before the withdrawal; thus, the Romney-Ryan ticket’s plan for Afghanistan has been solid and consistent. The content of their plan, however, is as good as anyone’s guess.

What I mean by the content of their strategy pertains to the decisions made following the advice of ground troops. The more I’ve read that statement, the more I’ve slipped under the impression that it leaves the door open to just about anything. Essentially, it leaves the door open to the possibility of cancelling a withdrawal in 2014, and it also clarifies that although Romney agrees with the 2014 deadline, he hasn’t promised it like President Obama has. The reason behind this analysis is that there is still a growing concern over the volatility of the country, and that there are still plenty of incentives to leave a significant military presence there.

The suicide bombing on Friday (October 26^th) in Maymana was a reminder of the lingering, yet prominent reasons that some may believe is enough to extend the military presence in the country further than 2014. Despite both Obama and Romney agreeing that there has been relevant success in Afghanistan, Paul Ryan insisted that there was still a lack of American troops in the Eastern region of the country during the vice presidential debate. With these statements, the Romney-Ryan ticket appears to have strong awareness of these incentives to stay in Afghanistan, especially with the notion of applying more pressure in Eastern Afghanistan.

The possibility of leaving a military presence in Afghanistan relates to another hot topic in foreign policy, which is the nuclear proliferation of Iran. Romney has consistently asserted that Obama has portrayed weakness in the face of the situation. The connection which seems to be overlooked is that having a strong military presence in Afghanistan (especially in the Eastern region) is strategically crucial regarding the situation with Iran. With the existing military bases along the Western coast of Iran (ie. United Arab Emirates, Kuwait), leaving troops in Afghanistan situates the American forces at every doorstep of Iran. Essentially, extending the stay in Afghanistan will mean the American forces will have Iran surrounded for that much longer. This type of geographical strategy matches Romney’s attitude towards the situation with Iran by making a hypothetical strike attainable to any region of the country within minutes. Is it possible that Romney is keeping the possibility of a deadline extension to see how the situation with Iran unfolds? Again, the content of their plan, after the “advice of ground commanders”, is anyone’s guess.

In opposition to Romney’s plan, Obama’s deadline for 2014 is promised and unconditional. With the president, there is a certainty with what America and its troops abroad will get. Although I do not doubt that Romney believes a 2014 deadline is appropriate, like he has consistently stated, it is useful to consider the possibilities of his caveat.

References

Rizzo, Jennifer. 2012.  "CNN Fact Check: Romney against 2014 deadline in Afghanistan before he was for it". CNN. web.

The Vice Presidential Debate and its Lingering Questions

          On the first presidential debate, the general consensus has been the lack of aggression and authority in President Obama’s presentation. While Governor Romney demanded more speaking time, manhandling the mediator in the meantime, it seemed as if Obama was looking to execute a counter-attack that never happened. The lack of character in the debate arguable left a void in the Obama’s campaign. Last Thursday’s vice presidential debate, in my opinion, provided an opportunity for Vice President Joe Biden to compensate for the lack of aggression and alpha presence that Obama lacked for the Democratic party; and ultimately, Biden did in fact project an increasingly aggressive presence in the debate, much like Romney did. On top of that, Biden inherited what appeared to be Obama’s strategy, by looking to counter-attack Congressman Paul Ryan’s criticisms of the Democrat policies. What made the vice presidential debate a success for the Obama-Biden ticket, was Biden’s aggressiveness which allowed him to clearly convey facts and statements in order to counter Ryan’s criticisms.

 

          By emphasizing his experience, some as far back as Reagan era, Biden was able to establish his veteran presence and conveyed his responses in a methodic approach by numbering his arguments. On the other end, Paul Ryan addressed the audience and mediator with his youthful charisma; however, at many times, seemed like he was over-acting. If I need to elaborate on the term “over-acting”, it seemed as if he was trying too hard, like a D-list actor auditioning for an A-list role. Biden’s presentation was perfect either, as the congressman at one point stated [after a persistent interruption from Biden], “…I understand you’re under a lot of duress to cover lost ground”.  

          In my perception, Biden’s success over this debate came from several instances where he was able to respond to Ryan’s main criticisms with counter-statements, which the congressman could not respond to. The first which instance which stood out came from Biden’s response to Ryan’s very set of statements regarding the lack of embassy protection. In regards to the Libya attacks on the American embassy members, Ryan indicated to the lack of protection the Obama administration gave to the embassy; however, Biden immediately responded by identifying the $300 million cut on embassy protection under Ryan’s proposed budget.

          In regards to the threat of Iran’s nuclear proliferation, Ryan was quick to note that Iran is much closer now to acquiring nuclear warheads than they were before the Obama administration; however, again Biden responded by identifying that until Iran acquires a weaponry body to place the enriched uranium in, they are far from building an actual warhead. On top of Ryan’s inability to disprove Biden’s explanation of warhead construction, the vice president contributed to one of the most interesting factors following this debate, which are the lingering questions that remain unanswered. “What more can the president do?” To clearly elaborate on this question which Biden directly asked the mediator and Ryan, what more could the president do to freeze Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities that is short of going to war? This question basically won this topic for Biden. Even though the current sanctions have not led to any stoppage of nuclear enrichment in Iran, he placed the burden of answering the question on Ryan; in which his inability to do so led to the perception of the congressman’s inadequacy in regards to handling this subject.

          Another instance of Biden’s counter responses was following his own speech on the success of the 2008 bailouts of the automobile industry. Ryan followed the vice president’s statements by highlighting the slow economic growth of the decision to do so. This response by Ryan was successful in reveling that the bailout was not actually as successful in its own terms since the economy has only been growing by 1%, rather than the projected 4% that was married to the promotion of the bailout decision. Biden, however, came back by explaining that Ryan actually sent him a letter asking for a stimulus package, similar to the bailout, and quoted the congressman’s own words explaining that it would “stimulate economic growth”. Although this letter was just a small blip in Ryan’s commitments, Biden’s counter-response painted a contradiction in sole premise of Ryan’s statements, which discredited the congressman for much of the economic section of the debate.

          Amongst all the complex details regarding the tax section of the debate, the premise is quite simple, and that is the competition in ideologies. Both the vice president and the congressman presented numbers and statistics provided by numerous studies by numerous associations titled with acronyms which, in fast speech, will fly right over the audience’s head. What stuck was simply the competition between the Obama-Biden ticket’s quest for lower middle-class tax rates and higher upper-class tax rates, versus the Romney-Ryan ticket’s higher middle-class taxes, but lower tax rates for higher income individuals who create employment opportunities within the country. However, Biden turned this ideological debate to his favor by asking the congressman where they would find $5 trillion in loopholes to finance tax reliefs for both the middle class and the higher income individuals [as Ryan claimed]. Paul Ryan simply could not answer with specifics, which turned this otherwise evenly matched competition of ideologies slightly into Biden’s favor.

          In regards to the situation in Syria, Paul Ryan insisted that the foreign policy should not have been outsourced through the United Nations, which Russia the power to veto any decisions to intervene in Syria, and concluded that it decreased the trust that their allies had for them. Biden quickly responded, although again with his aggressive and interrupting behavior, that 49 of their allies had actually agreed on their decision to outsource through the UN. But the most interesting part of this section of the debate was the question provoked by the discussion between Biden and Paul. Without retrieving UN approval for an intervention, wouldn’t any action taken by the US government in Syria be mirrored by the criticism and negativity surrounding the Iraq invasion in 2003? Because this is the stance of the Romney-Ryan ticket, the lack of an answer [in my perception] left a void in Paul Ryan’s argument.