A WEAK AMERICA ROARS BUT RETREATS WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH / THE FINANCIAL TIMES COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS ( VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING )

A weak America roars but retreats when the going gets tough


Ayaan Hirsi Ali

June 23, 2011


On Wednesday the President of the United States announced that he would order a gradual troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. On a superficial level there is nothing surprising about this decision. President Obama is simply implementing what he had promised the American people in 2009 when he agreed to honour General McCrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.


A second glance at the President’s speech reveals something more interesting than the high cost of the war. In between the lines, what the President said amounts to an elimination of a key component in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and the elevation of a minor practice.


The eliminated component is the counter-insurgency programme that in practice is a mere euphemism for nation building. The elevated one is the use of drones and targeted bombing of selected individuals and groups. This is new counter-terrorism strategy. It is sugar-coated in grand speeches such those delivered by the President in Cairo two years ago, and it is not difficult to sell to Americans who are struggling with the weight of their economic problems.


The response to Wednesday’s speech by the ruling party and the opposition was remarkable. It used to be that Democrats were more squeamish about the use of bombs of any kind. Liberals in America have tended to prefer soft power and when hard power becomes inevitable they insist that a United Nations or NATO force lead the way as in Libya, all the time pressing for a minimum of civilian casualties.


The strident calls from some of the Republican leadership to draw out all troops at once are notable because it seems like there is a bipartisan consensus. But what is this consensus on and how strong is it? There appears to be a general agreement on the high cost of the war, the prevailing importance of domestic issues such as the economy and the need for Afghans to take responsibility of their destiny as soon as possible.


The liberals have gone silent on their core issues such as habeas corpus, the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the opposition to water boarding. By quietly conceding to Mr Obama’s decision to expand the use of drones they seem to have accepted the basic assumptions of former president George W Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney that terrorists are enemy combatants and that the US is at war. However, the former administration at least justified civilian casualties and the sacrifice of American blood by a serious attempt at nation building in the troubled areas. They also pursued counterterrorism measures that were consistent with those assumptions such as military tribunals at home and regime change abroad.


Opting instead for drones abroad and trying terrorist suspects in regular criminal courts confuses the already muddled “war on terrorism”, now renamed the “war on violent extremism”. Try explaining to a Yemeni, Somali or Afghan survivor of a drone attack that America is not at war with Islam and means well.


Many in the US and around the world wonder if the President’s speech is yet another sign of America’s decline. American power and weakness is often a matter of perception. From the perspective of the Taliban, the withdrawal of American troops is a sign of her weakness and their strength. And it is not only the Taliban that will see it this way: the Iranian regime, the Assad family in Syria and the malignant units in the Pakistani military and secret service see a weak America that roars but retreats when the going gets tough.


The writer is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and founder of the AHA Foundation, which works to protect Muslim women’s rights.