April 10, 2009

The Long Road

 

If Iraq was seen as the bad war – a war of choice – Afghanistan is now being presented as the good war, a war of necessity. This was the gist of the message conveyed by President Obama at his White House briefing, attended by this scribe, where he proclaimed his new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

There is now a heavy military component to it with the addition of 22,000 more troops. Mixed with it is a tripling of aid to Pakistan along with a diplomatic outreach which includes Iran – a country with whom America shares a degree of common concern on Afghanistan. In effect, Obama has taken ownership of the Afghan War, and has also declared that his administration now officially views the Afghan-Pak situation as a single coherent theater of operations.

Afghanistan has lived up to its legacy as a quagmire of empires: the British in the late 19 th century; the Soviets in the late 20 th century; and the US in the early 21 st century. According to one observer, Obama cited the name “ Pakistan” 41 times during the announcement of his new policy, reconfirming the centrality of Pakistan in the re-framing of the new US-Afghan strategy.

The prospects of Pakistan becoming a bigger mission down the road cannot be discounted. But escalation can act both ways, as the targeting now of Lahore through the attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team and the police training center demonstrate. American adversaries may use this buildup to recruit more into their camp. Also, exploding tensions occurring simultaneously in Afghanistan and Pakistan could derail new initiatives. The problem in Pakistan may exacerbate in that the federal authority is fragile, with eroding credibility.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have increasingly touched wide segments of American society and have, according to a BBC news report of March 27, thus far, led to 1.8 million American troops having seen deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama is now depicting the security situation in Pakistan as a threat to US soil (the Vietnam War, in contrast, was never depicted as a threat to the American homeland).

In his briefing, significantly, Obama highlighted the role of the Pakistan people and praised their heritage. Notable was the de-emphasis of the role of the Pakistan government.

 

The happenings on the Afghan-Pakistan front cannot be de-linked from the larger political climate which enflames Muslim public opinion against US policies.

Does America accept that it is a part of the problem? It would, should it review its attitude on occupation situations even though some of the occupiers are its favorites, like Israel in Palestine, and India in Kashmir.

Only recently, this scribe attended an event in the Washington area, where visiting British parliamentarian George Galloway – a five-time elected member of the House of Commons for 23 years – commented specifically on this aspect. He said, “ Palestine is the heart of the matter, and it is in the heart of every sincere Muslim.” The outspoken Galloway was dismissive of Bush as “stupid”, while terming Obama as “the professor President”. As to Obama, he said: “You have no excuse; you know the issue.”

The great policy failure of many US Administrations has been the inability to come up with even the most rudimentary plan to tackle the Palestinian question with honesty and fairness.

Instructive here is the recent case of former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Chas Freeman, who was nominated for the post of Chairman, National Intelligence Council. Freeman was noted for his analytical rigor and intellectual independence, including outspoken criticism of Israeli actions, in striking contrast to the pusillanimity of his peers. Freeman’s nomination incurred the wrath of the pro-Israel lobby which orchestrated a campaign forcing Freeman to withdraw his name, but not before Freeman publicly assailed Israel supporters for suffocating free debate in the US on the Mideast conflict.

Another major misstep has already occurred, with the US supporting the candidacy of the current Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for the Secretary-General of NATO. Rasmussen is remembered for his inept and boorish handling of the cartoon controversy of early 2006 in Denmark, which enraged Muslims worldwide. To have him now become a chief of a military alliance which is fighting in Afghanistan would be fraught with peril.

Elsewhere, there are signs of shifting gears. Obama’s Iran overture is a sharp departure from the approach of the Bush Administration and seems connected with his overall Afghan posture of reducing fronts. His Nowruz video message to Iran showed a respectful tone bereft of the usual threats.

Also, Obama calls the Iranian government by its legal name, The Islamic Republic of Iran, instead of referring to it as merely a “regime”. Though not comparable at this stage, it is somewhat reminiscent of Nixon’s China initiative, when China became to be known, not by the slur “Red China”, but by its official nomenclature, the “ Peoples Republic of China”.

In a related shift in terminology, the Pentagon has re-named the ‘global war on terror’ as ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’.

Is a softer tone a precursor for a tangible shift? Not yet, although a prominent visiting Pakistani religious scholar told this scribe that he personally experienced an attitude and atmosphere of greater respect, instead of suspicion and paranoia, upon entering into the United States recently.

70 days after his inauguration, Obama seems to have a lot on his plate with Pakistan emerging at the core and the key to his Afghan policy.

What next? There is no magic formula and no shortcuts. Amidst uncertainty, there is one certainty. It is going to be a long road.