“Afghanistan”, says the Guardian, “is a very imperfect example of international intervention. If there is one lesson to be drawn from the rise of [Daesh] in Iraq this year, it is that hasty or mismanaged withdrawals will return to haunt you. Clearly fearing the worst, Barack Obama has partly reversed the narrative of complete western combat-troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of the year.” But for all the flaws of the US polices, “it is international commitment to Afghanistan that has allowed the country to undergo the first democratic handing-over of power in its history”, says the paper. “The scale of the achievement in the development of education and civil society should be recognised too. The fate of millions of Afghan women will be at stake if the Taliban is allowed to return to power.”
Dallas News believes it was unfortunate that the American public was kept in the dark, but it believes Obama was correct to extend the combat mission of US troops in Afghanistan for at least another year. “Obama’s decision, kept secret until revealed by the New York Times on Saturday, amounts to an acknowledgment that Afghanistan’s armed forces aren’t ready to fend for themselves on the front lines,” says its editorial. “Afghan troops have a long way to go before they can fill the void, so it’s logical that the US combat mission should be extended. The stakes have rarely been higher. Delaying an end to America’s combat mission is the right choice when the goal is to ensure that the Taliban don’t sweep back into domination, replicating the nightmare unfolding in Iraq.”
Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper says Obama is learning to appreciate the fact that ending wars is much harder than starting them and calls Obama’s decision to hold out in Afghanistan prudent. “Domestic policy and mandate urged Obama to bring two white elephants back to the enclosure – the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,” writes its editorial. “The spectacular implosion of Iraq has led the administration to rethink its hasty retreat. The new order instructs remaining US troops to engage the Taliban, as opposed to just Al Qaida. It allows them to accompany Afghan troops on combat missions and carry out air strikes and drone attacks when needed. This is a far cry from what Operation Resolute Support was intended to be; a training and logistical support mission.” On the flip side, says Dawn, Pakistan can be sure of the fact that the much-hated drone campaigns will still continue unabated.
The Boston Globe draws the inevitable parallel between the US withdrawal in Iraq and the consequences thereof and the situation in Afghanistan. “The lesson of the mess in Iraq is that the United States must seek to avoid the same mistakes in Afghanistan. When Afghan president Hamid Karzai refused to sign a bilateral security agreement that would allow US troops to remain, the Obama administration began considering the so-called ‘zero’ option, which would pull all US soldiers out by the end of 2014. Luckily, Afghanistan had an election that yielded a new unity government, albeit a fragile one ... But the Obama administration still appears to be on track to exit from Afghanistan. This is not a war he [Obama] wants to pass on to his successor. But like Iraq’s government, the fragile truce between Ashraf Gani Ahmadzai and Abdullah Abdullah was only forged because of American diplomacy ...”
