Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as his war

Originally tipped as a learning trip, Senator Barack Obama's 10-day tour of eight nations in the Middle East and Europe has turned out to be little more than a series of photo opportunities to enhance the presidential candidate's international profile.

"He looked like a man in a hurry," a source close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki told us last week. "He was not interested in what we had to say."

Still, many Iraqis liked Obama's claim that the new improved situation in Iraq was due to efforts by the Iraqis themselves rather than the "surge" strategy carried out by General David Petraeus. In his comments, both in public and in private, Obama tried to give the impression that the Iraqis would have achieved exactly the same results even without the greater resources the United States has poured into the country since 2007.

To be sure, Iraqi officials admit in private that Obama's analysis is "way off the mark". Without the "surge", the Sunni tribes would have found it impossible to switch sides and help flush Al Qaida out of their territory. More importantly, strong US military presence enabled the new Iraqi army to defeat Iran-backed Shiite militias in Basra and Baghdad. Nevertheless, in public at least, no Iraqi politician would wish to appear more appreciative of American sacrifices than a man who may be the next president of the US.

What surprised the Iraqis most was Obama's apparent readiness to throw away all the gains made in Iraq, simply to prove that he had been right in opposing the overthrow of Saddam Hussain in 2003.

"He gave us the impression that the last thing he wanted was for Iraq to look anything like a success for the United States," a senior Iraqi official tells us. "As far as he is concerned, this is Bush's war and must end in lack of success, if not actual defeat."

Nevertheless, Obama knows that most Americans believe they are still at a war against an enemy that is prepared to use the worst kinds of terrorism against them. Thus, Obama cannot do what his anti-war base wants, that is to say declare an end to the war on terror and the start of a period of love and peace in which "citizens of the world" build bridges between civilisations.

This is why Obama is trying to adopt Afghanistan as his own war. He claims that Bush's focus on Iraq has left Afghanistan an orphan in need of greater love and attention. Despite the fact that the US military strategy has been reshaped in the past two decades to enable America to fight two major wars simultaneously, Obama seems to believe that only one war at a time is possible.

But what does all this mean in practical terms? Based on the latest understanding of Obama's shifting positions he now wants to shift at least two brigades, or as some say two battalions, from Iraq to Afghanistan. But where did that magical figure come from? It came from Nato that has been calling on its members to provide additional troops since 2006.

Nato wants the additional troops primarily to improve the position of its reserves in Afghanistan. The alliance does not face an actual shortage of combat units. What it is facing is a punishing rotation schedule that forces some units to stay in the field for up to six weeks longer than is the norm in most Western armies.

Problem

Part of the problem could be resolved if all Nato members agreed to commit troops to combat. The problem is that the German constitution does not allow German troops to fight in foreign lands. Thus, the new German arrivals would provide little more than statistical relief to the war effort in Afghanistan.

The Dutch could also help provided they allow their troops to move into battle before clearing every move with the government at The Hague, a procedure that in practice makes them unavailable for fighting when needed. Other Nato allies could also help by relaxing their rules of engagement.

The French, who have taken in part in actual fighting, have already agreed to provide some 800 more troops. Turkey is also studying plans for sending more units.

Overall, Nato hopes that its 27 members should have no difficulty to provide the 5,000 or more troops it needs for a "surge" in Afghanistan. There is no need for the US to abandon Iraq in order to help Afghanistan.

The immediate effect of Obama's plan to abandon Iraq and send more troops to Afghanistan is to ease pressure on other Nato members to make a greater contribution. Even in Paris, some critics believe that President Nicolas Sarkozy should postpone the sending of additional troops until after the US presidential election.

The American move would suit Sarkozy fine just as he is reducing the size of the French army and closing more than 80 garrisons across the country. Other Europeans will also be pleased with Obama's plan. German Chancellor Angela Merkel will soon face a difficult general election in which her main rivals will be calling for an end to "the Afghan adventure".

Today, with the sole exception of Spain, Europe is governed by pro-American parties. These parties are now under pressure from the Bush administration to translate their pro-American claims into actual support for the war effort in Afghanistan. By promising to shoulder the burden, Obama is letting the European allies off the hook. Merkel, Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi would be able to advertise their pro-US credentials without taking electoral risks by inviting their largely anti-war publics to prepare for greater sacrifices in far away Afghanistan.

Obama does not seem to have taken any notice of all the subtleties of the European political scene. Despite the fact that he says he came to listen, he seems to have heard nothing of interest during his trip to the Middle East and Europe.

A man who had announced his strategy before embarking on his "listening tour" could not be expected to change his mind simply because facts on the ground offer a different picture.

In Paris, a friendly reporter asked the Illinois senator if there had been any one thing that he had heard or seen during his visit that might persuade him to alter any aspect of his polices. Obama's answer was a clear: no.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.