Afghanistan In-and-Out

The decision is in. After months of meetings and debate, President Barack Obama declared in a speech Tuesday at the West Point Military Academy, he would be deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.  (Video:CTV)

While the increase was not surprising, an unexpected addition to the speech was a plan for troop withdrawal beginning in the summer of 2011. The speech sparked reaction from media in NATO allies and countries worldwide.

We’re taking perspectives from Russia Today, CTV, BBC News, Al Jazeera English and Deutsche-Welle.

“After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.” (MSNBC)

Canada’s CTV interviews a reporter for a Canadian military magazine, who supports a definitive withdrawal date.  And, he says, the real future of Afghanistan will be decided in a civil war that takes place after NATO forces withdraw.

“Ironically enough it was one of the Taliban leaders who’s currently serving in parliament, he wanted NATO to stay longer for the reason being that the Taliban has been expending their resources fighting NATO, and they need to recuperate that to regain their strength for the fight that’s coming when we leave. So if you take that ultimate irony to its conclusion, NATO’s continued presence in Afghanistan benefits the Taliban.”

“We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government, and we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.” (MSNBC)

Al Jazeera English interviews Afghan men after Obama’s speech with the resounding opinion troop surge will do nothing if the Afghan government can’t fend for themselves.  A major obstacle to that has been widespread corruption.

“Forget about 30,000. Even if one million more American troops come here it will not solve anything until the Afghan security forces are ready. The Americans are doing this for their own geopolitical reasons, not for us.”

“Because this is an international effort, I've asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we're confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead.” (MSNBC)

In his address, Obama called for NATO allies to add 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Germany’s Deutsche-Welle looks at reaction from Germany, a country who’s been criticized for limiting their troop involvement, and standing by while U.S., British, Canadian, Dutch and Danish units deploy to the more dangerous areas.

“The German lower house of parliament is expected to extend the current Afghanistan mandate on Thursday, while sticking to the upper limit of 4,500 soldiers. Such a move would not leave much room for additional troops since Germany already has some 4,300 German soldiers in Afghanistan.”

“Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan, and now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility; what's at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.” (MSNBC)

BBC News Night interviews Labor MP Eric Joyce who voices the British popular frustration over how Obama’s decision – good or bad – will now dictate British foreign and military policy because of policies like Germany’s.

“It’s quite distinctive, quite clear that we have a disproportionate commitment in Afghanistan, compared to say Germany, Italy, France and other European allies. But the American administration doesn’t seem to recognize that.  It’s not clear what we get back for that disproportionate commitment. And I’m for one fed up to be told by Washington what our foreign policy is. That is the case isn’t Mr. Vulker. Of course, Gordon Brown announced it today because if he’d announced it after tomorrow he would then be accused of being a poodle. But he actually announced it today because President Obama said he could announce it today.”

“So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country.” (MSNBC)

Russia Today interviews a member of the historical perspective society who says Obama’s announcement is more about Washington than Kabul.

“The Afghan issue has split the U.S. establishment, some urging the president to deploy more force and others against. Obama has tried to please both sides, which means he is thinking about the next election. So by that time, he will be able to tell voters, 'I did bring stability to Afghanistan and now we’re pulling out so you can vote for me again.'”

What do you think about Obama’s decision and the world’s reaction?

Writer: Allison Bennett

Producer: Erika Roberts