What Afghans Thought of Obama's Iraq Speech

Afghans might have been expected to cheer when President Obama asserted that the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq would free up extra resources for the conflict in their country, where the fighting has only gotten bloodier since the Taliban's resurgence. Yet many Afghans say the American President's remarks are cause for even more concern. Though the big news of the day was a massive reshuffle of Interior Ministry officials, the speech in Washington was parsed on radio and TV talk shows, with the question looming: Will Afghanistan be abandoned to a similar fate? Given the volatile conditions that U.S. forces are leaving behind in Iraq and the spreading insurgency in their own country, some Afghans are convinced that there are still darker days ahead. "We are worried the Americans don't have the patience to stay as long as we need them to," says Ruhollah, 24, an employee of a Western firm. "I don't like to think what happens if we are left alone." (See a three-minute version of Obama's Iraq speech.)

When he ordered a second troop surge in Afghanistan in December, Obama insisted that, like in Iraq, a major troop buildup was needed so the U.S. military could ultimately get out of what has become its longest war to date. But with deployments set to reach a full strength of 150,000 within days, combat deaths in Afghanistan are at a record level — and the pumped-up presence has only until Obama's deadline of July 2011, or about 11 months, to make an impact before the troops are scheduled to start withdrawing. Some say they have only until December, when the White House will review the war strategy. Several senior military officials have hinted that a significant troop reduction may have to be delayed, but in his Iraq speech, Obama maintained that "open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

Afghan government officials, including President Hamid Karzai, and other observers shudder at the July 2011 deadline — or any deadline, for that matter. Homegrown security forces are not ready, they argue. Setting a time frame gives the Taliban-led insurgency "a morale boost," in the words of Karzai, to wait out American forces until they pull out. According to Waheed Muzhda, a Kabul-based analyst and former Foreign Ministry official during the Taliban regime, it may consequently make the Afghan President, in his struggle to hold on to office, more inclined to settle for a power-sharing deal with the Taliban, a solution Muzhda says is not in the best mutual interest of the Afghan people and the U.S. "Afghans have a hard time understanding why the U.S. talks of withdrawal while pledging that it will place more focus on Afghanistan because the Taliban and al-Qaeda are still strong within its borders," he says. "That shows there is no organized U.S. strategy." (What will happen to Afghan women if the Taliban return to power?)

Many Afghans believe that a key to resolving their country's problems is dealing with their neighbor to the east: Pakistan. But they do not believe the Obama Administration is prepared to make Pakistan back down from its support of the Afghan Taliban, despite Obama's past pronouncements that militant extremism is a regional phenomenon that must be approached holistically, and not just in Afghanistan. The Pakistani military has moved aggressively against the Taliban on its side of the border, but links between Islamabad's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and the Afghan Taliban leadership inside the country continue to foster long-running suspicions in Kabul. "Before, [Obama] was talking about all of that coming from Pakistan," says Mohammad Shoaib, a university student in the Afghan capital. "Has he forgotten that they are at the root of our problems?" Such apprehension has been reinforced by allegations that the arrest of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Afghan Taliban's operational commander, in Karachi in January was initiated by Islamabad because he was secretly involved in peace talks with the Afghan government. (See the case of a civilian casualty in Afghanistan.)

The most common complaint aired by ordinary Afghans has been over Washington's efforts to build good governance. Obama has repeatedly acknowledged that stability can only be achieved by winning grass-roots support, not by killing Taliban. And in recent months, an anti-corruption drive has been ramped up to pressure the Karzai administration to crack down once and for all on the systemic graft that has forfeited the public's trust. But U.S. officials say that Karzai has resisted reform at every turn, and the American strategy itself has been undermined by mixed messages, as a recent controversy over a presidential aide reportedly on the CIA payroll showed. The absence of any serious discussion of the issue — or even a hint of it in the President's address on Tuesday — is especially troubling for some. "Corruption is clearly at the root of what's destroying our government," says Fahim Ahmad, a young parliamentary candidate from Kabul. He maintains that more capable civilians should be dispatched to Afghanistan to help upgrade the security forces and improve the transparency of Afghan institutions and the services they are supposed to deliver. "We know the U.S. doesn't want to stay here forever, so there must be other ways aside from troops to help us in the long term."

See reactions from Iraq on Obama's speech.

See what the U.S. leaves behind in Iraq.