• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In the Kremlin’s AI Propaganda Blitz, the Noise Is the Signal

    Russia’s AI-driven propaganda campaigns operate in a fragmented, chaotic, and often illogical manner. That’s not necessarily a problem for the Kremlin, though: It’s much easier to mimic genuine public debate that way.

      Ilya Klishin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Will Trump and Putin’s Diesel Deal Impact Russia and Global Markets?

    Without a ceasefire with Ukraine on attacking each other’s energy infrastructure—to which the Kremlin is unlikely to agree—the diesel agreement between Putin and Trump is largely for show, rather than representing a genuine increase in the volumes of Russian diesel on the global market.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Stalled at the Front, Russia Seeks to Undermine Ukraine’s Economic Capacity

    Russian strikes are weakening the economy sustaining Ukraine’s war effort. Closing the growing funding gap will require more European support and politically contentious reforms in Kyiv.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russian Indoctrination in Occupied Ukrainian Schools Is a Sham

    Despite a new textbook, an influx of Russian teachers and managers, and an end to the teaching of Ukrainian, the Kremlin is unlikely to have “reprogrammed” locals.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    International Demand for Russia’s Arctic Shipping Route Is Unlikely to Last

    Cargo traffic through Russia’s Northern Sea Route has increased because of the disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East, the Ukraine war, and U.S.-China tensions.

      • Mikhail Korostikov

      Mikhail Korostikov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.