Afghanistan is becoming another Vietnam for America. Since October10, 2001, the ravaged country, for consecutive nine years, has sucked the American and NATO troops and phenomenal resources, through consistently insane diplomacy. The resistance forces have not only succeeded in holding the aggressors, but have rather pushed them back on their heels. Seeing the momentum, the Taliban have gained over the years and the below par performance displayed by the NATO and American military command on ground (in the absence of a cause), it seems obvious that the initiative in the field has gone into the hands of the resistance forces. An unbiased audit of nine years war of occupation presents a balance sheet marred with extremely poor governance hampered by corruption, rising drug trade and demoralized, under-strength Afghan security forces lacking the desired will and motivation to fight on one side; and the courage, grit and perseverance displayed by Taliban on the other side. The sad story of the Afghan war also presents irrefutable evidence that the occupation forces also lack the requisite will to fight and the capacity to train and partner with Afghan security forces. The rising number of flag draped body bags returning home and the alarming rise in suicides amongst the deployed troops points towards that naked reality. According to the Body Count’s survey1:
- About 303 times as many people have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the ghastly attacks of September 11, 2001.
- More than 130 times as many people have been killed in these wars and occupations than in all terrorist attacks in the world from 1993-2004
For America alone, the economic cost of war has surpassed $171 billions2 and the human cost includes 1416 dead (in addition to 2247 from coalition forces) and 9256 wounded at the start of December 2010.3 America some day shall have to answer and apologise for the human and economic losses of Iraq war that include over 1.6 million deaths and several thousand disabilities4 to the invaded people besides staggering material losses including important archaeological artifacts. As for the US invasions and occupation, the cost has crossed over $3 trillion as calculated by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University in their co-authored book, ‘The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.’5
Presuming that the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan that America has paid till 2010 was due to the continuation of Bush legacy, it needs no genius to foresee the devastating outcome of the Obama’s ‘surge strategy’ that has brought the total American strength in Afghanistan to over 105,000. Seeing the war performance of last nine years, it is not difficult to conclude that the recent surge is yet another vain attempt to reinforce the failure. Furthermore, Obama confesses himself that the new approach will cost $30 billion for the military thereby putting more squeezes on the already depressed economy.6 While spending more on the surge in Afghanistan, the American President needs to think for a while that he is overstretching his resources like the later days of Roman Empire without the inbuilt home strength to sustain such frivolous economic (mis) undertakings.
Over the past several years especially after the demise of Soviet Union, America has lost balance between national security and the economy, between coercion and diplomacy. Obama has to challenge all this because future of America as a nation is at stake and continuity in militarization will only result in ending civil liberties, and shrinking capacity in meeting needs at home. The recipe of borrowing money to prosecute wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and bailing out financial institutions and Wall Street is pushing America deeper and deeper into debt. The new strategy in Afghanistan reveals that American Empire has money for war but doesn’t have money for health care and jobs etc. It is astonishing to note that of the 192 UN member states; America alone is spending more on defence expenditures than the rest of 191.7 For how long shall this process of mortgaging Americans future continue? One of the captions of the News Week of 1st week of December 2009 is worth pondering which reads:
“Steep debt, slow growth and high spending kills empires and America could be next”8
Foregoing discussion and imagining the phenomenal costs involved in this misadventure in view, the questions that bugs ones mind iare:
- Why the US and NATO alliance are getting embroiled in a needless war?
- Is it only for wielding influence in the region to gain access to the resource rich Central Asian Republics and contain the might of Russia, China besides strangulating Iran through a double containment move?
- Could America not ensure its influence over the region through even handed approach and generous economic packages (only 5-10% of its total expenditure on war and deployment of forces abroad) instead of physical occupation?
- And more surprisingly, why are the NATO countries facilitating the US design without any possible gains?
The World has become a global village. Interdependence of nations has increased manifolds. The manner of conquests has changed radically through a process of evolution that is based solely and purely on economic warfare. Strong and powerful nations do not have to physically invade weaker nations to win over their allegiance or support. Skilful manipulation of economy can do the job much more efficiently and adequately than physical occupation. Winning the support of the governments is no longer a tenable option; a more viable and sustainable option is to win over the people. Unfortunately, it is this change in reality and perception that the American administration has failed to register. The US think tanks are a conglomeration of mostly old hawks, zealots and adventurists who still stick to the old doctrines and designs of international domination through physical occupation of territories.
Obama was seen as a new hope for securing peace and tranquility in the world. He has not delivered so far. On the contrary, he seems to pursue the aggressive policies of Bush administration; the same policies for which the people voted the Republicans out of power and created feelings of anti-US sentiments far and wide. His election was seen as a change for the better. It was thought that he would bring about drastic changes in his policies towards Iraq, Afghanistan and the world at large. The only visible change (which is worse) is his decision to shift the battleground to Afghanistan while still holding a tight grip on Iraq. His much awaited New Afghan Policy contained nothing more than another surge of 30,000 troops (plus 7000 from NATO) which has caused further dismay to the already dismal situation in Afghanistan. The policy aims at winning the war in eighteen months that could not be won in 8 years – indeed a highly over ambitious plan based on wishful thinking. The long awaited strategy revolved around combined use of power with the projected aim of degrading Taliban forces and preventing Al-Qaeda from re-establishing a terrorist foothold in the war torn nation. The salient were:
Deployment of additional 30,000 or plus Americans and over 7000 troops from NATO countries. The reinforcement to be positioned by June 2010 and withdrawal from Afghanistan to commence after 18 months (tentatively June 2011).
- Capacity building of Afghan government included quadrupling of Afghan army, eradicating corruption and uplifting of farmers and downtrodden people of the hinterland.
- Creating fault lines amongst resistance forces and isolating senior Taliban leadership by cultivating their lower echelons through underhand deals.
- Winning common Afghan’s loyalty through massive civilian aid.
- Pledges to help protect Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and help prevent any possibility of Taliban’s take over of Islamabad. And stabilize Pakistan through provision of direct aid and by bringing stability in Afghanistan.
Seeing the past performance of high tech US / NATO forces during the last nine years of Afghan war, it is difficult to fathom how these forces can achieve the stated aim and objectives especially when seen in the context of a graduated pull out beginning in July 2011. The policy also conflicts with the singleness of aim by also setting impracticable and non-pragmatic diversionary objectives such as enabling the Afghan security forces through training to effectively handle and fight the Taliban forces in the post withdrawal period, rooting out corruption, undertaking development works and uplifting of farmers and isolating the second / third tiers of Taliban commanders from the top Taliban leadership. Ironically all this in about 18 months or, more precisely, in about 12 months considering the time required for induction, deployment and logistic buildup.
Mr. Obama seems to have tried to appease both, the Democrats and the Republicans: the Democrats by announcing a time frame for pull out, and Republicans (and Pentagon) by sending more troops. The new policy gives strength to rumours that while he might be sincere in his resolve for peace, he is facing stiff resistance from the hawks. If rumours are to be believed, he is at war with the Pentagon and some hawks in the State Department and the two parties. He appears to be in a quandary. However, it is such like situations in which a leader’s ability is truly tested.
One salient aspect of his new Afghan policy, which was too serious and alarming to escape notice, relates to Pakistan. While he has tried to mollycoddle Pakistan by pledging to protect Pakistan’’ nuclear assets and help prevent any possibility of Taliban’’ take over of Islamabad, he has indirectly conveyed that Pakistan can not protect its nuclear assets on its own. This clearly implies that America would jump in as and when it feels that our nuclear assets are unsafe. For this, they would fabricate situations to ensure their intervention. The oft-repeated statements of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar’s presence in Pakistan confirm US ambition of intervention. It is this malintent which further raises serious concerns to the presence of Black Water and other security agencies within striking distance of our core nuclear assets.
Can he rise to the occasion by asserting his authority? Can he come up with a more enduring and durable peace strategy by taking steps such as initiating a peace dialogue with Afghan Taliban after announcing an early time frame for withdrawal, to be replaced by UN force comprising contingents from Muslim countries tasked with reconstruction/rehabilitation works and creating conducive environment for holding free, fair and transparent elections and providing level playing field to all Afghan factions including Pukhtoons. Afghans have been at war for over 30 years and seem to be in no hurry compared to Mr. Obama who is up against time, which is running fast. Instead of finding excuses for his failures after one or two years, he must see the writing on the wall, and opt for a saner approach to ensure peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region. Leaders get rare opportunities in life to change the course of history. Those with vision and nerves of steel can surmount any formidable challenge; it is only the weak willed who cow down in the face of daunting challenges. Why is the US President Abraham Lincoln remembered and eulogized for his determined resolve to abolish slavery. He fought against all odds and carved a name in history. Obama is a man who can give America a new found look of a nation, which not only stands for peace but can contribute towards global well being and prosperity. He is a man who is expected to put an end to the highly polarized anti US sentiments of the world in general and Islamic Ummah in particular. This is very much possible and within his powers. He only has to firmly stand his ground.
For Obama to deliver peace to the world, he has to develop the knack of identifying the hawks that are out to undermine the world peace and stay away from them. He must seek counsel from the moderates and human rights activists who strongly favour even handed approach in the resolution of various international conflicts. He must seriously revisit the US foreign policy, which thus far has magnified the crises instead of curtailing them. The US lust for securing access to the world resources, through invasions and establishment of bases all over the world besides round the clock presence of its naval fleets and quick reaction forces at colossal costs, has landed the American nation into heavy debts in the process causing frustration and discontentment among its citizens. Should he persist with these policies, the 53 American States will soon start fragmenting causing its demise / break up like the erstwhile USSR. This possibility might appear far fetched, but it will happen sooner or later. Is this not enough of a reason to ring alarm bells in the US administration? The sooner he realizes that, the better before it is too late.
A true leader has to be a visionary. He must have foresight to look into the future. Leaders with myopic vision are no better than ordinary men with fixated minds and short term goals. Obama must learn from China whose leadership has successfully parried all international conflicts and needless adventures. No wonder why it is regarded as the future economic giant. USSR lost its vast empire, Japan faced devastation, and Germany was cut into two halves mainly due to their hegemonic designs. Wise leaders learn from history. Those who disregard lessons of history are doomed to destruction. Obama must learn lessons from history and review the US foreign policy in keeping with the demands of time. He must look inward instead of looking out and concentrate more on his domestic policies. The corner stone of his foreign policy must revolve only around securing peace in the world and helping the third world countries to overcome poverty and deprivation. Creating false threat perceptions to the US main land will not help. Al-Qaeda has been falsely portrayed as a serious threat to the world peace knowing fully well that it is too small a network (if at all it still exists), and does not have the wherewithal to pose any threat with its depleted resources.
Some saner elements in the US administration seem to have realized that Taliban are a reality who must be engaged in peace process. Afghanistan is a quagmire, which will absorb any number of surges in the troop’s induction. Already the increase from time to time has not worked. Any further increase in troops will also not help. Extending support to a puppet Karazai is like reinforcing the failure which is against the universally accepted concept / strategy. He is corrupt, highly unpopular and inefficient to the core, and his authority does not extend beyond his palace, or (to give him the maximum) the inner perimeter of Kabul City, which is shrinking with every passing day. The Americans are insanely and naively betting on a wrong horse and they are sure to lose their bet. Infact, there can be no other recipe for peace than securing a deal with all Afghan factions including Taliban.
Taliban must therefore, be engaged and brought into the main stream politics. The two sides must sit together, through mediators, to arrive at acceptable agenda. Apparently, arrangement such as US announcing a time frame for pull out and Taliban dissociating themselves from Al-Qaeda could form the basis of an agreement. Once this issue has been sorted out, other modalities can be worked out to the satisfaction of both parties. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia must be inducted as arbitrators into the peace deal. However, expecting Pakistan to help US strike a peace agreement while asking it to extend its operations to all parts of FATA is against all norms of diplomacy, justice and fair play. As a quid pro quo, Pakistan too must be given a chance and encouraged to rethink and modify its strategy from one of conflict to that of conflict resolution. America should seriously consider the reconstruction and rehabilitation of war torn FATA and Afghanistan while forcing India to stop fomenting any more trouble inside Pakistan. It must be asked to dismantle its several consulates from Pak-Afghan borders and only engage in reconstruction activities. There should be an end to conspiracies, subversions and sabotage activities being organized by various foreign agencies inside Pakistan especially in FATA and Balochistan. The involvement of India in FATA, Balochistan and even Punjab is an open secret. The large cache of Indian Arms, ammunition, heavy weapons and currency recovered from every hideout cleared by Pak Army proves beyond doubt that Indian consulates deployed along Pak Afghan border, are consistently at work to recruit, train and equip the militants. The Americans know this pretty well but are quiet, albeit naively; not realizing that by allowing a free run to the Indians, it is they, besides the region, which would stand to lose by way of increasing Indian influence in the longer run. The US must realize that their new strategic partnership with India is not as enduring and longer lasting as India’s relationship with its old time tested Russian ally; hence it is the combined Indo-Russian influence that will re-emerge in Kabul with America finding it high and dry as ever before.
Pakistan has demonstrated its resolve to fight terrorism and eradicate extremism in Swat, South Waziristan and beyond. The sacrifices in men and material it has rendered during the war against terror are far more than all other countries fighting this war. Pakistan has not only provided the United States access for undertaking Operation Enduring Freedom but also intelligence and logistics facilities to support the operation towards its success. Pakistan has not only denied sanctuaries to the terrorists on its soil but also interdicted their financing and apprehended terrorists for prosecution in Pakistan and abroad. During the period, Government of Pakistan on numerous occasions has gone against the wishes of its own people in supporting this war. Pakistan has ensured security and safety of NATO supply routes from Karachi to Afghanistan. Despite all this, Pakistan’s sincerity has always been questioned with doubts and with the rhetoric’s of ‘do more’. Drone attacks are consistently challenging Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty and Black Waters and similar other security outfits are flouting diplomatic immunities at will. Is this the way to reward a front line ally? America has to demonstrate that it can and will reciprocate the cooperation, and acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices rendered while fighting the (initially pure American) war. Respecting demand of Pakistan’s Parliament, drone attacks must be stopped forthwith. Rather it would be appropriate if Pakistan is given the drone technology for its use against the terrorists operating in FATA and elsewhere in Pakistan. Economic cost of the losses of men and material suffered by war against terror in NWFP, FATA and elsewhere in Pakistan has surpassed over $70 billions. The economic relief being provided in the Kerry Lugar bill was peanuts compared to the losses suffered and that too was with conditionalities undermining national honour and respect. Therefore, there is a dire need for comprehensive and generous bail out plan to revive Pakistan’s economy and the social infrastructure destroyed in the affected areas.
Pakistan became a nuclear power out of sheer compulsion. The level of its nuclear power potential is restricted to mere deterrence against the overwhelming superior Indian conventional forces. While America has forged a strategic partnership including nuclear arms deal with India, it has out-rightly disregarded Pakistan’s dire need for achieving a minimum defence capability. A nuclear Pakistan has been falsely projected as a serious threat to the world peace. These fears are largely based on unfounded perceptions. The Indo-Zionist nexus is perceived to be largely instrumental in fabricating this threat. It must be appreciated that whereas Pakistan supports the legitimate cause of Palestinians to an independent and sovereign state, it holds no grudge against Israel and is not in the least bit likely to enter into a direct or indirect conflict with Israeli nation. Acknowledging the Pakistan’s role as an ally, America should facilitate Pakistan in declaring it a nuclear state and atomic power within the international safeguards.
Simultaneously, India too must not feel threatened if it has no intentions of undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan, and does not cross the thresh hold. A peaceful India posing no threat to Pakistan must feel safe and secure from Pakistani nation which not only wants to co-exist peacefully with India but also maintain long enduring relations of friendship and free movement / trade across the borders. However, it has to be recognized that road to peaceful South Asia passes through Kashmir and respect for the sovereignty of each other. This desire of cordiality and harmonious relations by Pakistan, if acknowledged in its true perspective, must put the Indian suspicions to rest. America instead of taking sides must persuade India to recommence composite dialogue that has been stopped under the pretext of Mombay attacks. Occasional acts of terrorism by the non-state actors must not be allowed to derail the peace process.
America has all along projected the image of a country that stands for peace in the world. A glance at history of the American adventures reveals that it created false sense of insecurity to its homeland and elsewhere, and undertook intense diplomatic lobbying and massive propaganda to justify its invasions regardless of the reservations of international community. The Korean war in 50’s, the Vietnam War in mid 60’s till mid 70’s; extending the parameter of operations to Cambodia, followed by invasion of Iraq in 90’s till now, and Afghanistan in October 2001 till date in the process killing about 10 million people are glaring examples of the misadventures of America. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki add yet another sad chapter to the inglorious undertakings of America. What has it gained from these wars except earning the image of an evil empire besides causing massive devastation, and further compounding the miseries of many nations? America is being viewed as an arrogant, violent and aggressive nation with its leaders acting as the cold blooded old time English movies cow boys killing people indiscriminately. If this image has to be rectified, which it must, the new American administration under Obama has to emerge as the deliverers of peace and progress in the world, and resolve all the burning issues amicably and even handedly. It has to shun its neocon or unilateral approach and involve all the stakeholders into the peace process. The peace process must aim at restoring the confidence of comity of nations in the sincerity of US in resolving issues, while simultaneously taking concrete mega socio-economic steps to assure the world that America no longer desires to achieve domination of the world through unilateral physical means. A lot has to be done to secure its credibility through mutual trust and confidence building measures. America should be rest assured that extending legitimate support to all nations will strengthen its domination and influence through the hearts and minds of people. No government can ensure sustained and desirable relations with America; it is the people of the nations who must be won over for lasting and long enduring relationship. This in nutshell is the philosophy and thinking on which the US administration must develop its aims and objectives. Wielding influence over the world will follow automatically.
Bush used to show concern and surprise at the growing anti-US sentiments in the world. He would often wonder why all this despite the American aid packages doled out to the underdeveloped nations. He never dug deep into the ‘Why’ aspect or, so to say, the underlying causes of disenchantment with the US policies. This reality came to fore once again when the Pakistani nation strongly resented against the conditionalities of Kerry Lugar bill taking the \American Administration by surprise. This apparent expression of surprise is either phony or it indicates their total lack of understanding of the sensitivities or perceptions of Pakistani nation which view this bill as having ulterior motives against the vital interests and strategic assets of Pakistan. There is a common adage that at times ‘Good faith also paves way to hell’. This is how the Pakistani nation looks at the so-called good faith, which belies the American claims of long enduring friendship. The conditionalities also amply speak of the American insensitivities to the concerns of other nations. This approach is no longer valid in today’s global world having free media.
Obama was perceived as a leader with positive thinking mind. He only needs to choose a team which must possess sagacity and prudence to ponder at length at the core issue of anti US sentiments and take steps to redress them. The team having done its homework must educate the members of the Parliament whose opinions are based only on the input they get from the media and the lobbyists.
American lobbyists are a community who do not have their own opinion and only influence the decision makers, right or wrong – they don’t care, for money. Thus, they wittingly or unwittingly, cause serious dent to the American image. Their ambit of influence must be curtailed drastically which is possible through awareness and education of the members of the Parliament with the ground realities and perceptions of other nations. It may also be seen that the American MPs, and more so the Political parties, depend heavily on funding from various lobbies with vested interests. Their views are a hostage to these fund donors and, therefore, not independent of influence. This gives way to compulsions and even dictation from the powerful quarters. Obama must revisit the modalities of election process to eliminate, or atleast substantially curtail the negative role of heavy spendings during elections. As the saying goes that the old habits die hard, and the easiest course is to follow the traditional path, but then the leaders with outstanding abilities and sterling qualities do not tamely submit to the resistance offered to them during the course of their struggle to effect changes for the better. Obama seems to have the tenacity, will power and determination to achieve the impossible.
I remember my interaction with a high powered US delegation of Congressmen in my capacity as Commander Anti Narcotics Force, NWFP way back in 2004. During the course of conversation about US policy towards Afghanistan, I suggested that they needed to refocus their strategy from one of counter terrorism alone to that of extending the mandate to counter narcotics (to dry up the source of revenue generation for terrorists activities) and pacification measures such as reconstruction and rehabilitation and simultaneously plan on an exit strategy since the Afghans would not take their long presence lying down and are sure to bounce back with vengeance. I even quoted a statement from some magazine which said that, “it sounds extremely bizarre and comical when you hear of American soldiers running after terrorists through poppy fields not realizing what lies under their feet”. On hearing this, the head of the delegation gave a big laugh and addressing another congressman said, Look – (say Mr. X– I have forgotten his name) the General is singing your song. Then I had a lengthy discourse with Mr. X with whom I minced no words in saying that their policy was totally lopsided and that it will never yield the desired results. Mr. X agreed with me and said that he had been crying hoarse about the extremely negative implications of Afghan policy but no one listened to him. Such is the case of callousness of American hierarchy. But that was then; they had no (or very little) knowledge about Afghanistan which too is surprising given the fact that they were head to toe involved in the Afghan resistance against USSR invasion. They now have the knowledge and experience of hindsight which they must put to good use if they have to avoid another waterloo like in Vietnam. Obama must not repeat the blunders of Bush, Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld of the past administration, and listen more attentively to the more pragmatic Joe Bidden and his likes. America under Obama’s leadership should not wage wars and rather show strength, courage and prudence to end wars and prevent conflicts. That will be a new America; much stronger economically, influence and popularity wise.
Lastly, a few words depicting Pakistan’s predicament should serve to bleed anyone’s heart, if he has one; and I believe Obama not only has a thinking mind but also a sensitive and a sympathetic heart. If that be so, he must understand that the possibility of another 9 / 11 is too remote considering the US administration’s existing level of vigilance compared to its past negligent performance despite prior warning indicators by its intelligence agencies to a possible terrorist threat. Hence, to assume the impossible (or at least improbable) and trying to prevent it by invading other countries and killing millions of people is far more atrocious than the most tyrant and paranoid rulers like Ganges Khan, Hitler, Massolini, Saddam, and undoubtedly Bush Junior. It must also be understood that while America had only one 9 / 11 (and none thereafter), we have had it on almost daily basis. We have had over 300 suicide attacks killing thousands of people and creating wide spread feelings of insecurity. Imagine if only 5% of this were to happen in America (and I sincerely hope it does not), the American public would have forced its Government to wind up all its bases and deployments abroad.
So, Mr. President, have a heart and reserve your self the title of a benign leader in the history, unlike the savages of the past.
Obama is a statesman with a thinking mind. There is no reason to doubt his intentions that he wishes to see a more prosperous world, free of conflicts and hegemonic designs. His speeches and statements show adequate resolve. He must only come out of the clutches of the old hawks and think tanks with fixated mind sets. He seems to possess strong nerves to make a radical departure from the existing US policies of discord to those of concord. He is a man who is apparently not given to discordant actions, and has the capacity to take all nations on board.
Foregoing in view, Mr. Obama must seriously address the following questions and many more to find appropriate response:-
- Is the US heavy defence spending (more than the total defence expenditure of 191 UN member states) worth the expected gains? Besides, what are its stated aims and objectives for achieving such (untranslated) gains?
- Is America so insecure that it has to venture into needless misadventures to ensure its security? Remember that it has peaceful neighbours like Canada and Mexico on its East and West while its other two sides are flanked by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. So what then is the fear?
- The only threat (which is false and grossly exaggerated) could be a terrorist attack which can be easily averted through sound intelligence, and regard for human freedom. Assuming this threat to be a possibility, does it still provide sufficient justification to create havoc in the world like no one has ever done before? The atrocities of even the known tyrants like Hitler etc pale into insignificance in the face of American onslaught of mass destruction.
- What is the basis of the American fear to a terrorist threat? Remove the root causes, be fair, even handed and stop covert and overt operations and have due regard for human values and freedom. The fear shall disappear automatically.
- Heavy defence expenditures have put every US citizen under debt, including the new born babies. How long can the American public put up with the economic recession, increasing joblessness, curtailment of civil liberties and lack of sound health facilities? Can this amount, or even 15-20% of this needless expenditure, not be spent on economic well being of its own citizens besides taking adequate inland security measures?
- Do sovereign nations not have the right to resist against the occupation forces? If George Washington is remembered as a freedom fighter (and rightly so), why freedom fighters resisting elsewhere against the invading forces are branded as terrorists?
- The United States has long been known as a ‘Melting Pot’ because many of its people descended from settlers who came from all over the world. American citizens are basically peace loving people and possess tremendous spirit of accommodation, which is why they have shown enormous capacity to absorb multi-nationals into their society. It is only their leaders, particularly the hawks who need to display similar capacity for peace, love and accommodation. It may be understood that the international community including Muslim countries do not hold any grudge against them. It is only their leaders whose hegemonic lusts have created anti-US sentiments.
- The continuation of Rebert Gates as Secretary Defence was like going ahead with the failed policies of Bush. Instead, a Secretary Defence with fresh mind could reinforce Obama’s new approach rather than standing alongside the military which clearly lacked vision.
- Obama may rest assure that US has long before reached a dead lock in Afghanistan, and shall remain so with any number of surges. The sooner he realizes the US predicament, the better so that he can come out of the fixated mindset and think of viable political alternatives such as replacing the NATO forces with mutually agreed UN forces which could create conditions favourable for general elections ensuring participation by Taliban. Insisting on total surrender by Taliban before US pull out and general elections shall only perpetuate the war.
- American Army may be the best equipped force in the world with all the air and naval technological edge available to support its operations, but it must be understood that technology alone is worth nothing in the absence of a justifiable cause, and consequent will and motivation to fight. The American and NATO forces lack both; the cause and motivation / will to fight.
- The recent overtures of peace through negotiations with Taliban are indicative of the realization by saner groups in the US administration that they are fighting a lost war. That they seem to be convinced of the futility of fighting the Afghan war is a positive thinking and should be taken in good grace. Sound strategy to include early exit with simultaneously arranged substitute UN forces acceptable to Afghans, tasked with restoration of peace, holding free and fair elections, and participating in reconstruction / rehabilitation of Afghanistan shall be a win -win situation, both for America and Afghans. There will be no losers, so no question of hurt egos. The negotiations with Taliban must, however, be based on guaranty that all elements of Al-Qaeda shall be driven out and that no such elements shall be allowed ingress inside Afghanistan in future as well.
- US rely heavily on its core intelligence agencies. The authenticity of its (mis) reporting can be gauged from the false and exaggerated presence of WMD in Iraq. These agencies, which are always at war with each other, try to outsmart each other, through false and sensational reporting, only to cover their failings. Should such agencies be relied upon for undertaking misadventures? Is it not high time to revamp their structure, and give them specific goals of collecting precise intelligence that is true and accurate instead of covering their failings through Pakistan bashing?
- Obama needs to ponder at the reasons of his frustration (as highlighted in Obama’s Wars) caused by the inflexible military command during his several review meetings of Afghan strategy. Presented with limited options (or indeed only one option of 40,000 troops surge), the decision of 30,000 troops serge was almost imposed on him. The review meetings clearly indicated that both sides, the civil administration as well military suffered from the phobia of failure. In the event of such uncertainties, did the Obama’s compromise decisions not smack of impending failure? The big question is why take a decision that is doomed to failure at the outset. Wise statesman, which Obama clearly is, do not and should not have allowed its military or hawks to dictate terms.
- While Pakistani nation does not grudge cordial Indo-US relations, it does however, feel concerned about complete US tilt towards India at the cost of undermining the core interests of Pakistan. If US sincerely want peace in the region, it must demonstrate visible signs of resolving outstanding issues between Pakistan and India.
- In case of any doubt, the US President may hold a referendum in Iraq and Afghanistan to determine / know whether the Iraqis and Afghans want to be saved by Americans or saved from them.
- The time frame for drawing down of troops has been extended to June 2014 in the NATO Summit at Lisbon, while still retaining major bases in Afghanistan. Obama’s review strategy in December 2010 seems to be no different from the decisions of the NATO Summit. Shall Obama come up with some ‘Out of box’ solution in the December review? He has got an opportunity. Will he squander it under the sheer weight and influence of Pentagon and hawks or decide on something radically different that brings peace to the war ravaged Afghanistan?
Now the big question is whether Obama can rise to the occasion. My hunch is that he can. His resolve that he often showed during the review meetings and even later indicates that he is weary of the Afghan war and would like to consider other options to end the war, reinforce my hopes. So Good luck to him and the world.
End Notes
1. http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html#fn17
2. Anwar Iqbal, “Obama gets strong support for New Afghan Strategy”, The Dawn, Islamabad, December 3rd, 2009, p.1.
3. http://icasualties.org/oef/ (5-12-2010)
4. Baker James A. et al,(2008) The Iraq Study group, New York, Vintage Books
5. Joseph Stglitz and Linda Bilmes, 2008, The Three Trillion-Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
6. US President speaks at US Military Academy at West Point,New York,December 01,2009, “ The way forward in Afghanistan & Pakistan”.
7. Farukh Saleem (2009) ‘O America’ The News, Islamabad, December 6th, 2009, p.6
8. News Week, December 7, 2009
