Obama’s Afghan photo-op

Then again, it is an election year and Afghanistan scores poorly in the public opinion polls. Effective campaign strategy demands sweeping Afghanistan under the carpet and surfacing it only when necessary. Such raw political opportunism was on full display during Obama’s six-sour spree in Afghanistan.  
 
{mosads}Furthermore, Obama’s trip reinforces the misleading perception that a year after Osama bin Laden’s death, the U.S. has won in Afghanistan and now it is time to go home. This provides another check on Obama’s campaign storyline of accomplishments and fulfilled campaign promises. Although politically convenient, it irresponsibly creates a false sense of security.
 
Overall, the president has not provided the effective unity of purpose and consistent morale that the mission and its troops deserve from their commander-in-chief. As for allied troops, the broader international coalition and N.A.T.O. alliance, they are simply beyond the election equation. 
 
However, no need to worry. The upcoming N.A.T.O. summit on May 20-21 will provide another photo-op.  Once again, temporarily and expediently remove Afghanistan from under the carpet. This time it will yield even greater campaign dividends since it takes place on U.S. soil and in Obama’s political birthplace, Chicago. 
 
The summit provides an indispensable opportunity to play global leader on domestic turf during an election year. The symbolism and setting is perfect for a campaign rally: not only does Obama venture to Afghanistan but brings Afghanistan, and the world, to Chicago. It is a goldmine of countless headlines. For the President’s strategists, effectively extracting maximum political mileage is of supreme importance. The summit offers additional advantages: less time-consuming since no distant overseas travel is required and convenient time-zone for full domestic and global media coverage. Furthermore, it is physically more cost-effective and prevents accusations of using taxpayer money for expensive overseas campaign photo ops.
 
During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama took ownership of the Afghan issue. It played a key role in his successful campaign narrative.  The sound-bite worked effectively: Iraq is the wrong war, Afghanistan is the war of necessity. Four years have passed, and despite Bin Laden’s assassination, the expected results in Afghanistan are far from achieved. For Obama’s campaign strategists, there is still a fundamental need to spin Afghanistan to the President’s advantage. After all, it worked in 2008, why not use it again in 2012.

Vincenzino is director of the Global Strategy Project.