Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
President Obama has put Afghanistan at the top of his foreign policy agenda. But polls suggest that many Americans don’t share the President’s view on that. Anchor Jeb Sharp speaks with Andrew Exum, a fellow at the Washington think-tank, the Center for a New American Security.
Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.
JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp. And this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, P-R-I, and W-G-B-H, Boston. President Obama has put Afghanistan at the top of his foreign policy agenda, but his top military man, Admiral Mike Mullen, said yesterday that public support here is flagging. Polls back that up. The goal of stabilizing Afghanistan is ambitious enough. It becomes nearly impossible without solid support from the public, and a clear vision from the President. Andrew Exum highlights the issue in his latest blog postings. Exum is a fellow at the think-tank, the Center for a New American Security, in Washington. He’s also an army veteran, with multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq under his belt. Andrew Exum, what is missing here? Is it a vision of a desirable end state, the strategy to get there? Give us a sense of what you’ve been writing about.
ANDREW EXUM: Well, I think you’ve got a couple things. First off, the American people haven’t really paid attention to Afghanistan for most of the past five years because of the war in Iraq. And not only have the American people not paid attention to it, but policy makers have not as well. And so we’ve arrived to the point where we’re almost in our ninth year of combat in Afghanistan, and it suffered from neglect in several different ways, and it shows. First off, the American people, and including actually a lot of senior policy makers I’ve spoken to, and the departments and agencies and the government, don’t feel like anybody’s explained what we’re trying to do in Afghanistan. And then second, I, you know, I just returned from a long trip to Afghanistan, and there is a belief that we have not done an effective job communicating what exactly is going on in Afghanistan, and why we need to shift strategy there.
JEB SHARP: And so, who’s at fault? Whose job is it to articulate and sell division, and how do you do it?
ANDREW EXUM: Sure. I think that two people are really responsible for articulating what’s going on. First off, President Obama has to defend his stra-, his policy rather. He’s the one that has to explain why we’re in Afghanistan, and what we’re doing there. Second thing, Generals Petraeus, and General McChrystal, who really have [INDISCERNIBLE] their responsibility for the effort in Afghanistan. They’re the ones that have to explain to the American people how we’re going to realize the President strategy, in other words, what we’re doing. Afghanistan is never gonna be a popular war, I don’t think any wars are going to be popular, but I think that people would understand it a little bit better if policy makers, and our operational commanders took the time out to explain what we’re doing in Afghanistan, and how we’re going to get to where we want to be. Keep in mind, General McChrystal is a new commander in Afghanistan, he has just completed his own 60-day review. And I suspect that as part of that 60-day review, and this is something that we talked a lot about, is that he needs to take the message to both policy makers in congress, as well as to the American people, and explain what we’re trying to do.
JEB SHARP: So, given that that train is moving along on one track, what are the practical real world consequences of the confusion that you refer to, and the lack of clarity?
ANDREW EXUM: Well, I think you’ve got several problems. First off, this is a NATO war, and it’s very difficult to manage a coalition, and to get every partner in the cohabitation working along the same lines. And for everybody to understand what resources are needed, what type of strategic changes are needed, and it’s very difficult to do that if you, the American government, are all not on the same page about what needs to happen.
JEB SHARP: And Andrew, you are an infantry platoon commander in Afghanistan. Can you give a sense of how and whether this big picture policy stuff affects the men and women on the ground?
ANDREW EXUM: Yeah, it absolutely does. You know, one of the things that we often don’t talk about, but which is quite significant, was the psychological effect that the 2007 Baghdad security plan had on troops in Iraq. Soldiers, American soldiers, generally have high morale, they don’t mind fighting, they believe in their mission. But they have to believe that there’s a coherent strategy that surrounds their mission. And one of the things that the 2007 Baghdad security plan did, is that it provided, first off, a clear strategy for how we were going to go about our business in Iraq. And then second off, it provided sufficient resources for us to be able to go about that strategy. In Afghanistan, I believe the US soldiers on the ground are looking for the same thing. If they are lost in some random valley in Nuristan Province, and they’re not sure how exactly it connects to what we’re trying to do strategically in the country, that’s a big problem. It’s gonna really affect morale, it’s going to affect the way that troops do business on the ground. If however, we have a clear, coherent strategy that’s backed by sufficient resources, and that it’s made clear to not only the soldiers on the ground, but to the American people back home, that could have a tremendous psychological effect on the average guy fighting the war.
JEB SHARP: Andrew Exum is a fellow at the Center for New American Security, in Washington, and author of the blog, Abu Muqawama. There’s a link to his blog on our website, The-World-dot-org. And while you’re, there check out our weekly cartoon slideshow. Last week’s elections in Afghanistan inspired some poignant, and irreverent political cartooning.
Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.
I notice a recent shift in reporting (and this article seems to be a case in point) that when we talk about the war in Afghanistan, there seems to be more emphasis on going after the Taliban as our military objective, and almost never any mention of Al Qua’ida these days… why is this?… Isn’t the Taliban influence more a reflection of the general lawlessness in the country, and not really a threat in terms of global terrorism? Shouldn’t we be making clearer distinctions between the many different factions and the widely different threats in Afghanistan? And wouldn’t this help clarify our goals there militarily?