Mr Obama’s modesty may yet mirror his success

Michael Young

• Last Updated: November 18. 2009 10:47PM UAE / November 18. 2009 6:47PM GMT

An interesting article appeared in The New York Times last week. As the Obama administration continued to debate what to do next in Afghanistan, the paper reported that the decision, while relying primarily on military factors, also had “substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment”.

Estimates are that the United States will find itself paying around $1 million per soldier per year in Afghanistan. Even the deployment of a smaller number of soldiers than the 40,000 requested by the US commander in Kabul, General Stanley McChrystal, would erase the $26 billion the US hopes to save by withdrawing from Iraq. In that context, the military budget could reach $734 billion annually, 10 per cent higher than during the Bush years.

“Such an escalation in military spending would be a politically volatile issue for Mr Obama at a time when the government budget deficit is soaring, the economy is weak and he is trying to pass a costly health care plan,” The New York Times observed.

It’s not often that wallet issues force presidents to fundamentally overhaul what they regard as vital military projects. President George W Bush was able to mobilise immense resources after September 11 to finance wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite growing doubts in Washington and nationally. Mr Bush’s father, George HW Bush, avoided disputation by conducting a comparatively brief campaign against Iraq in 1990-1991, and paying for it mainly through Saudi funds. Today, the US seems incapable either of generating unlimited domestic funding for a significant surge in Afghanistan or obliging its allies to disburse money for that end.

One can debate the decline of the American empire at length, and financial insolvency is a good place to start, even if the US is far from reaching that stage. However, there is something else at play, a sense that when it comes to the broader Middle East, including Afghanistan, Mr Obama’s ambitions have been so thwarted in recent months, that Washington may be on the verge of radically altering course. Having failed to gain traction on numerous regional fronts, Mr Obama may be sorely tempted soon to look elsewhere for political success, adopting a position of benign neglect toward most Mideastern issues.

When he took office, the US president promised to reduce the American presence in Iraq while expanding it in Afghanistan, even as he vowed to engage with Iran and Syria without conditions and push toward a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Implicit in these aims, and in the rhetoric of Mr Obama’s advisers at the time, was that Mr Bush had not done enough, or where he had done enough he had done wrong. Today, Washington seems to have absorbed a dose of modesty, and, judging from the difficulties arising all around, it has much to be modest about.

The American withdrawal from Iraq is moving forward. However, this may destabilise the country if it is carried out too hastily, which would undermine a rare American accomplishment in the Arab world, namely the imposition of relative tranquillity after several years when the Iraqi situation was in disarray. And the Obama administration has still not convincingly explained how it will contain Iran by reducing its Iraqi footprint largely to an advisory capacity.

The administration has less to show for itself when it comes to Palestinian-Israeli peace. After initially demanding a full Israeli settlement freeze, the US backtracked, leaving the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, in the lurch. Mr Abbas’s ambiguity towards the subsequent Goldstone report on the Gaza fighting further eroded his credibility among his countrymen, and he has scant political latitude to impose a settlement on his Hamas rivals. Meanwhile, for the US to try breaking the stalemate through a dialogue with Hamas, itself far-fetched as a scheme, would only weaken Mr Abbas irredeemably, ensuring that negotiations remain blocked.

Mr Obama’s opening to Syria has also gone nowhere. The idea was to resume contacts with Damascus and push the Syrian president, Bashar Assad, into ending his support for Hizbollah and Hamas, while distancing himself from Iran and ending his interference in Lebanese affairs. Syria has met none of those conditions. Washington had announced that it would return an ambassador to the Syrian capital four years after the previous ambassador was recalled after Rafiq Hariri’s assassination, yet implementation of the decision continues to be delayed. Last week, the US assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, Jeffrey Feltman, admitted there were still “profound” differences between the US and Syria.

Mr Obama’s concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq are also limiting his options with respect to Iran. Nor has the fallout from the Iranian presidential election simplified things: the regime in Tehran is divided, reducing the prospect of a breakthrough in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. A status quo, however, does not necessarily mean that American military action will become more probable, especially if the political and economic backlash is dire. A conflict would have terrible regional consequences, drawing in the Gulf states, Iraq and Lebanon, while the impact on financial markets could be severe, so a conflagration costs more than what the US hopes to save in Afghanistan.

Next year, Mr Obama faces midterm elections. His foreign track record until now, the Nobel Committee’s vote of confidence notwithstanding, has been reed-thin. The extended Middle East is not a place easily ignored, but it is also not a place that does American presidents any favours. This may push the administration to lower its regional expectations and downgrade its involvement in issues provoking domestic rifts or enjoying little support at home. After nine years as a prisoner of Middle Eastern affairs, the American public is weary and wants something new. Their president may agree before very long.

Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star in Lebanon