Just found an article at The New York Times saying that because Al Qaeda’s network in Afghanistan has been severely damaged withdrawing American troops could be accelerated.
This article appears to create the perception that as a result of the damage to Al Qaeda’s network the troops can be reduced faster. I believe the opposite is more likely.
As a result of the desire to reduce troops faster a good reason for that was needed. And since the details and effectiveness of covert operations with drones and special forces are not know the public will not be able to evaluate or confirm whether any of those operations really damaged Al Qaeda’s network. Don’t get me wrong. In all likelihood the operations caused damage. How much and whether this is sufficient justification to accelerate the reduction of troops is a different question.
The timely coincidence with a few other things are also interesting. Firstly the United States have to figure out how to get their federal spending under control. The budget is entirely out of control. So reducing troops in Afghanistan is certainly a way to contribute to a reduction of the budget deficit as well.
Secondly, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Why are there still troops in Afghanistan?
Thirdly, Osama Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. How effective is the war on terror in Afghanistan?
And finally, Barrack Obama has come under pressure with the air war in Libya. Good news from a different part of the world will help to distract from that.
So in this context I’m not entirely sure whether the new findings allow an acceleration or whether a good reason had to be found to justify the already decided faster reduction of troops.
In the end it probably doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that there is a perspective that things are improving. If the situation in Afghanistan has improved so that military presence can be reduce then that in general is good news.
