Surge 2.0

Will Obama's surge into Afghanistan break the Taliban's resolve, or Washington's bank account?

U.S. President Barack Obama may have unveiled his plan for Afghanistan – a surge of 30,000 troops over the next six months, coupled with a pledge to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 – to a standing ovation at West Point this past Tuesday, but pundits' reactions were less than unanimous.

It’s Good

Editorial boards were largely supportive of the speech - plaudits came in from The Globe and Mail, which called the surge a “welcome move;” the Montréal Gazette, which said Obama's strategy is good for Canada; and the National Post, which said Obama’s surge could allow Canada to stay in Afghanistan in a development and reconstruction role past 2011.

The Los Angeles Times and The Toronto Star also liked the speech, but added Obama's strategy the only best of several bad options. Joshua Keating and David Kenner explore some of these options and explain why Obama rejected them. Clifford Orwin, writing in The Globe and Mail, sympathizes with the challenge Obama faced crafting his speech, saying it "not only could not please everyone, but was likely to satisfy almost no one."

It’s Bad

Orwin was right – Obama's surge faced broadsides on all fronts. Some pundits wondered what happened to the Obama Americans elected last year - The Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin thought he saw flashes of George W. Bush in Obama's speech, while academic Andrew Bacevich, writing in The Los Angeles Times, thought Obama was chaneling Richard Nixon.

Critics were also quick to argue that Afghanistan's just too expensive in a recession. Liberal commentator Rachel Maddow, globalization guru Tom Friedman, and hard-nosed realist scholar Stephen Walt all worried about the mission's costs, and their views may find some traction: a new Gallup poll says over 70 per cent of American voters agree that an economic crisis is a bad time to talk about spending even more money on Afghanistan.

And not everyone was applauding Obama's decision to begin withdrawing U.S. troops in 2011. John McCain, writing in Foreign Policy, argued that the deadline was artificial and that the mission should only end "when conditions on the ground have decisively begun to change for the better."

Some American and Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan shared that sentiment, along with op-ed columnists at the National Post and The New York Times.

It’s Complicated

A few pundits picked up on the nuances and caveats in Obama's speech. David Brooks and Gail Collins pointed out that while he set a deadline to begin withdrawal, he didn't set a deadline to finish it. Fareed Zakaria added that while Obama escalated the war, he whittled down U.S. troops' mandate from rebuilding Afghanistan to fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

These rhetorical arabesques, John Dickerson says, made his speech "methodical and emotionless" - a far cry from the soaring campaign rhetoric we saw in 2008. It’s Not Finished Obama didn’t say all that much about Pakistan in his speech – and that has more than a few commentators worried. Josh Rogin noted Obama's having a hard time following through on the deeper Af-Pak cooperation he promised earlier in the year. The Toronto Star's Haroon Siddiqui adds that even if Obama delivers on his existing Pakistan plans, which are focused on partnering with Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari, it won't add up to much as long as Zardari can't control Pakistan's generals. Mosharraf Zaid, writing for the National Post, sums up the debate by arguing that Obama's refusal to change tack on Pakistan means that the Afghan Taliban, along with al-Qaeda, will continue to have a safe haven where they can wait out American troops.