• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan Quandary

President Obama's failure to explicitly mention that the U.S. intends to stay in Afghanistan could could strengthen the Taliban, which seeks to outlast the international coalition.

Link Copied
By Ashley J. Tellis
Published on Apr 13, 2009

Source: Yale Global

Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan Quandary Despite opposition from many within the Democratic Party and even within the White House against deepening US involvement in Afghanistan, President Obama has courageously decided to fight this war—using, as he put it, “all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future.” In a White Paper, his administration has affirmed that Washington aims “to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy extremists and their safe havens” within the “Af-Pak” region because doing so constituted America’s “vital national security interest.” All this is good, but by failing to admit, out of political convenience, that the United States will engage in nation-building in Afghanistan—even as Obama embarks on just that mission—the president risks undermining his own strategy.

Comprehensive engagement in Afghanistan, of course, was opposed by a variety of constituencies. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), for example, warned against any reconstruction intended “to make [Afghanistan] our 51st state,” suggesting instead that allied objectives in that country be limited to ensuring that “it does not become an al-Qaeda narco-state and terrorist beachhead capable of destabilizing neighboring Pakistan.” Others, such as the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Leslie Gelb, urged Obama “to explore a strategy of power extrication” by which the United States would “leave Afghanistan” because “trying to eliminate the Taliban and Qaeda threat [therein] is unattainable.” Some other alternatives were proposed as well. David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute wondered whether the US would “be able to extricate [itself] sooner if we accept a decentralized Afghanistan with some regions ruled by groups that are currently fighting against our troops?” And, one senior NATO official, reflecting the view of many European governments eager to end their involvement in Afghanistan, has been quoted by the Guardian as arguing that Kabul “doesn’t need to be a democracy, just secure.”

Click here for the full text.

About the Author

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Multipolar Dreams, Bipolar Realities: India’s Great Power Future

      Ashley J. Tellis

  • Commentary
    India Sees Opportunity in Trump’s Global Turbulence. That Could Backfire.

      Ashley J. Tellis

Ashley J. Tellis
Former Senior Fellow
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Carney Canada EU Trump
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Von der Leyen Antonio Costa EU Europe
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe’s Self-Confidence Problem

    The EU’s responses to two recent incidents expose the gulf between European perceptions and capabilities. Unless the union can bridge that gap, it will never become a real geostrategic power.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Pituffik base greenland US Denmark
    Article
    Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical Assets

    European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.

      Marc Pierini

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step Back

    As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Are the EU’s Watered-Down Russia Sanctions Better than None?

    The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.