Obama's Well-Crafted Afghanistan Plan
President Obama's 4,582word speech, December 1, portraying the consensus
developed in the 25-hour, 9-session, 3-month long deliberations of his War
Council, has attracted much attention of the national and international media.
It was no stirring call by a master communicator to rally his people for a fight to the finish i against Al Qaeda and its underling Taliban, like that of Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor attack.
The US citizenry is already weary of the 9-year old conflict in Afghanistan. Many question even the basic wisdom of US involvement given the unrelenting recession. The American people, he mentioned, "are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home." Notably, he had just been conferred a Nobel Prize for Peace, placing prominently a vista of peace before him. Yet, he has made a convincing case for the war effort in Afghanistan. While opposing the war in Iraq, he had called the Afghan war last August, a "war of necessity". The US security, he maintained, was at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11 and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted."
The terrorist attacks against London, Amman and Bali were also plotted in this area. The stakes are higher within nuclear-armed Pakistan, as Al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons for use against the US and its allies.
These facts compel the US to act along with allies to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This would involve the denial of any safe haven to Al Qaeda, reversal of Taliban's momentum, and strengthening of Afghan government's security apparatus. To achieve these objectives, President Obama announced the quick deployment of an additional 30,000 American troops and up to 7,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan. It is expected that this troop increase would accelerate the process of the transfer of security responsibilities to Afghan forces enabling the draw down of the troops of the US and allies from July 2011 onwards.
Obama's message to the Afghan people was unambiguous: "America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And, we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect ...America is your partner and never your patron."
By any measure, Pakistan is the key country for the resolution of the conflict. "We will act with the full recognition", Obama declared, "that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan." In the past, the US had often defined its relationship with Pakistan narrowly, he admitted, adding, "Those days are over". The US, he assured, is now committed to a partnership built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust.
Mr. Obama's Afghan war plan has elicited a lot of comments in the media. Some favor the cut and run policy, ignore the threat perception of Obama and present a picture of doom and gloom in a land seen by them as the graveyard of all invaders. The unfavorable outcomes of the British wars in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of Soviet forces are cited in this context. The British accepted the stalemate probably because they wanted Afghanistan to serve as a buffer against the advancing Russian forces. The Soviets had to withdraw primarily because the Mujahideen (freedom-fighters) had the backing of the other super-power, the United States. Similarly, the argument that Afghanistan would turn out to be the next Vietnam is also untenable since the extremists lack the backing of any power matching the strength of the US whose defense budget is equal to the total outlays on defense of all other countries of the world. Also, the US enjoys the support of over 40 nations in the line-up against Al Qaeda.
In the speech, President Obama has sought to prepare the country for heavier fighting and higher casualties that are likely to result from his strategy. A thousand troops have died in the operation in Afghanistan since 2001. This year, 298 US troops have died as against 155 last year. The death toll is likely to increase further in the next 18 months as the conflict becomes increasingly intense and moves towards its outcome.
Whether President Obama will be able to meet his July 2011 deadline to start drawing down forces is questioned by many analysts. Doubts lurk about the ability of the incompetent and corrupt government of Karzai to carry out his part of the deal. The deadline carries a clear message to Karzai and his team that America's commitment is not open-ended. At the same time, as pointed out editorially by the NY Times, "Obama's generals and diplomats also need to know that their work will be closely monitored and reviewed. Otherwise, Obama will be hard pressed to keep his promise that this war, already the longest in American history, will not go on for ever."
Almost all commentators have pointed out that the most crucial role making or marring the war effort has to be played by Pakistan. For, it is to be borne in mind that the outcome in Afghanistan bears directly on Pakistan's future. Hence the armed forces' operations in South Waziristan that have already eliminated a vast number of militants; hence, the increased suicide bombings of the militants at different premises of security forces, including a recent attack at a mosque frequented by men in uniform.
Unfortunately, the tarnished images of civilian leaderships, the petitions against them in the apex court, the weak law and order situation, dwindling supply of the basic necessities of life like power and water, have all combined to render the civilian leadership ineffective. People at large are not clear in their minds as to the evil objectives of the religious fanatics and militants. There is virtually no opposition in the parliament: it calls itself `friendly opposition'. The media is filling the vacuum. And, depression and disillusionment keeps mounting among the masses. This state of affairs has only a negative effect on the morale of the people.
One hopes that the Supreme Court of the country currently hearing the petitions will come out with verdicts rehabilitating the faith of the people in their national institutions and the country's future. The problem of extremism and militancy cannot be solved through military operations only. A lot is to be done by the civilian institutions and leaders to cause a shift in the mindset of the misguided persons.
arifhussaini@hotmail.com
