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.