July 01, 2011

Obama’s Bold Decision to Pull out of Afghanistan

 

President Barack Obama announced, June 22, in a nationally televised address, an aggressive plan for a phased pullout of all 100,000 US troops from Afghanistan to end a costly war launched after 9/11, and to switch focus instead to the troubled US economy. He ordered the withdrawal of 10,000 troops in the next six months, with a further 23,000 by the end of next summer. Troops reductions would continue at a steady pace, bringing to an end in 2014 America’s longest war that has cost several hundred American lives and over a trillion dollars.

In a blunt acknowledgement of domestic economic strains, he declared, “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home”.

Americans are, no doubt, weary of war. They are weary of the lives war takes and the tax dollars war costs. The Afghan war has cost 1522 lives, and its price tag this year alone is $120 billion.

Obama’s decision ignored the warnings of his military commanders that it was too early to pullout as the recent security gains were too fragile to merit such a hasty withdrawal.  They had recommended that the current troops level be maintained till 2013. They had expressed concern that the Presidential decision was driven by political rather than military imperatives.  British Foreign Office too had reservations about the timing of the withdrawal.

NATO commanders led by Gen. David Petraeus pointed out that the elimination of Osama bin Laden two months back had rendered no noticeable dividend, no palpable reduction in the terrorist threat. They had urged that the existing level of troops be allowed to continue till 2013 so that the military had another full fighting season to attack Taliban strongholds and target insurgent leaders.

Obama had to balance the commanders’ recommendations against the war’s unpopularity among the people at large who expect the government to concentrate on the pressing economic problems. The Congress too held a similar stance. 

On June 15, 2011 some 25 Senators sent a letter to the President pointing out that the primary objectives of US involvement in Afghanistan have largely been met  – including the removal of the Taliban government that sheltered Al Qaeda, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the disruption of terrorist networks allied with Al Qaeda and those involved in the September 11 attacks on the United States.   The Senators therefore recommended a “sizable and sustained” drawdown of troops that puts the US on the path of total withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. They had also pointed out, “The cost of prolonging the war far outweigh the benefits. It is time for the United States to shift course in Afghanistan”. 

It may be recalled that in December 2009 when Obama agreed to the military’s request for a surge, it was also agreed that the enhanced strength of the forces would last for 24 months. Withdrawal was to commence in July 2011.  His drawdown calendar is therefore in line with that schedule.   It is also an indirect reminder to the commanders that schedules should be strictly adhered to. Discipline demands that. Fortunately, the commanders have come round to the viewpoint of the President, ending the differences and confirming his leadership quality and status as the supreme commander of the armed forces.

Mike Mullen, the top US military officer, acknowledged that the President’s withdrawal decisions were “more aggressive and incur more risk than I was originally prepared to accept”.  Still, Mullen felt those risks were manageable.

Gen. David Petraeus , who has led the decade-old US war effort in Afghanistan, has remarked, “It is again a more aggressive approach than (top commanders) and I would have indeed certainly put forward, but this is not something I think where one hangs up the uniform in protest, or something like that”.  He added quickly that the counterinsurgency mission was still achievable.

NATO commanders in the coalition force (ISAF) had also pointed out the risk, since they had found not much gain from the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Terrorist attacks had since become more intense.

In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai welcomed the plan of gradual pullout. It would reinforce the objective of putting Afghans in control of their own security by the end of 2014. 

In the words of Commander Mike Mullen, “We would have made it easier for the Karzai administration to increase dependency on us”, by keeping more forces in Afghanistan.

In Islamabad, the Foreign Office sounded skeptical about the plan and wanted to discuss it at the forthcoming meeting of the “core group” comprising Afghanistan, US and Pakistan.

Pakistan’s analysts have expressed apprehension that the withdrawal could intensify fight between insurgent and coalition forces along the Pak-Afghan border and adversely affect the already volatile security situation in the country. The US may intensify counter-terrorism tactics including a spike in drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal belt. Drone attacks are highly unpopular in Pakistan.

Afghan Taliban, who need to be pacified to bring abiding peace to a land at war for over three decades, dismissed the Obama pullout announcement as symbolic and said that only total withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan would end the “pointless war”.

To many a student of history, Afghanistan is the burial ground of invading armies. The Soviet Union had to withdraw in humiliation, witness helplessly the disintegration of the empire, and forfeit its status as a world super power. Over the past ten years that the US has been fighting the longest war of its history in Afghanistan, its economy has been nose-diving and is badly entangled in a relentless recession.  China , meanwhile, has emerged as the manufacturing floor of the world with an economy ranked now next only to that of the US and is likely to surpass it in the next two or three decades. Innovation and manufacturing that had rendered enormous prosperity to the US coffers, have been slipping from the US hands. 

The US involvement during the Bush era in the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan had enervated a thriving, throbbing society, and several operators of the economy, banks and investors included, turned into obnoxious monsters driven crazy by greed. The Obama administration has been trying to set things right. He has shifted the emphasis from wars abroad to economy at home. He has vowed that the US, struggling to restore its global image, shore up the economy and reduce unemployment, will exercise new restraint with the military power.

Fact of the matter is that the problem of Afghanistan can be solved only peacefully and through negotiations.

Obama’s  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, appearing before a Senate Committee,  acknowledged that there was no military solution to the conflict and the US had a broad range of contacts in search of a political solution. Vested interests in Pak-Afghan region, who are benefiting at personal levels from the conflict, might try to thwart such efforts. But, such deleterious tactics are bound to fail, as they are neither in the interest of their own countries or that of the United States.

                arifhussaini@hotmail.com