U.S. President Barack Obama's speech on Afghanistan has reaffirmed that America is at a loss over what to do, with public opinions split on the matter.
By any standards, Afghanistan is not a second Iraq, and the foremost concern of the United States seems to have long shifted from nation building, or turning the tribal country into a centrally-governed one, to maintaining a workable and pro-U.S. ― or at the very least not anti-U.S. ― government in Kabul, and leave it as little damaged as possible.
As Obama put it, America is getting deeper into the South Asian country to get out of it more easily. Rooting out al-Qaida or even halting the Taliban insurgency appears to increasingly be a fairy tale.
The U.S. leader mentioned Vietnam four times during the half-hour speech, citing what he sees as clear differences between the two wars, but to those who find more similarities than dissimilarities, it sounded more like autosuggestion.
So there was little surprise that the responses from major European allies to Obama's appeals for augmented troop deployment were less than enthusiastic despite their diplomatic rhetoric. The strongest response of all came ― as expected ― from Taliban insurgents, who reiterated their pledge to fight until all foreign soldiers leave their country.
It was against this backdrop the state-funded Yonhap News Agency reported Seoul would send up to 400 heavily-armed troops to Afghanistan probably beginning next July and has them stationed in the country until the end of 2012 ― one-and-a-half years after the U.S. troops begin drawdown.
If and when the deployment is completed as scheduled, it would mark the biggest presence by countries other than America and Europe, and one that has no direct interest with the South Asian country. Unlike in the past when the government sent troops for one year and renewed the period with the approval of the National Assembly, it has now set their stationing period at two-and-a-half years, citing the escalation of insurgents' security threats whenever Seoul was about to extend the period by another year.
Regrettably, from the decision on redeployment to detailed troop sizes and the stationing period, the Lee Myung-bak administration has never consulted with anyone else but will have one-sidedly decided on them before notifying the public.
The troop dispatch is of course not the only issue the Lee administration has handled unilaterally, but it should have exercised more caution and sought the public's opinion as well as opposition parties' in a matter that involves the people's lives. Government and ruling party officials say the Democratic Party should not oppose the plan, as it sent troops to Iraq when it was the governing party. Again, however, the situations are far different even between Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, the Taliban insurgency made it clear two years ago that if Seoul resends troops to the war-torn country, they would resume threats against Koreans' security.
If Seoul has to keep its commitment as a reliable partner of the United States, the government should persuade the people about the inevitability of the move and explain about the apparent dangers in going there, instead of making lame excuses related to North Korea or underestimating the security risks.
The nightmare of the Vietnamese War may not be limited to Americans but apply to Koreans as well. The government should not deceive itself and its people but should instead have them prepare for the worst possible scenario.