Round The World

New Delhi, 29 September 2009

Obama’s Af-Pak Policy

STRATEGY REVAMP ON CARDS?

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

The Af-Pak Policy that President Barack Obama launched with much fanfare seems to be on a slippery ground. Even as the commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanely McChrystal, stated that the war against Taliban could be lost within a year without more troops, Obama administration is exploring an alternative to a major troop surge in Afghanistan. While the military on ground is pressing on its urgency, the administration in Washington D.C. is in no mood to make haste.

A wholesale review of the war effort in Afghanistan is being considered. With 51 troops killed in August alone and the Taliban more organized and sophisticated, military strategists are mulling over as what should be the next move. Clearly, the Afghan quagmire is muddier than ever and there seems to be no end to it. The reverses suffered in the war are slowly but surely eating into the popularity of arguably one of the most charismatic leaders of our times.

The reconsiderations being undertaken regarding the American operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan might well be a routine affair to introspect on the successes and setbacks of the Af-Pak policy. But there is no doubt that Obama is having second thoughts regarding the prospects of the country’s strategy in an eight-year-old intractable war. The unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections only worsens the situation in the war-torn country with no clear mandate to take decisions, and further fears of factional differences among the Afghan population. In spite of whatever gains American and NATO forces make on the battlefield, Kabul can have a better future only when the people have faith in their government. A lot hangs on how and when the final verdict comes and what sort of a mandate and legitimacy the Afghan government has.

When a country fights a long-drawn war in a foreign land, things can get only murkier if there are differences of opinion between the military commander on the ground and the policymakers in the Capital. And there have been ample signs in this case. Even as General Chrystal assessed that the Afghan campaign will be in serious jeopardy if more troops were not approved and sent, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, contradicted the same in a televised interview. She said, “But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite.”

But, General Chrystal is not without support, which adds to the internal debate on reviewing the strategy. Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sent Obama a six-page letter arguing, “There is no strategy short of a properly resourced counter-insurgency campaign that is likely to provide lasting security.”

When Obama unveiled the Af-Pak policy, there were both optimists and pessimists’ reviews.  If some saw it as pragmatic to win the war, others viewed it as “Bush wine in Obama’s bottle.” Now, Obama seems to be thinking if the Af-Pak policy was ad-hoc at best. According to Pentagon officials, he is undergoing what they call “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops in Afghanistan within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

An alternative is being propounded by US Vice-president, Joe Biden, who favors a revamp of the American strategy. He prefers to scale down the troop strength in Afghanistan and instead increase surgical strikes on the Al-Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan. But according to a senior military official, airstrikes cannot achieve the desired results without significant troop force. In the absence of a policy of sanitization and maintenance by troops, all the insurgents need to do is re-occupy the places the troops vacate. Biden has often opined that the US spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to is in Pakistan. Earlier this year, Biden was opposed by both Obama and Clinton. But, given the search for an alternative this time around, he might gain some traction.

It should be good news that Pakistan is being seen as a major problem, but if implemented the policy runs the risk of increasing Islamabad’s belligerence against India by default. Increasing aid money to Pakistan in the name of supporting the American cause, without proper inspection, could probably amount to strengthening of the Pakistani military infrastructure directed against India. And, it will not be the first time that Islamabad would engage in such adventurism. But American policy makers seem to suffer from a short-term memory loss when it comes to dealing with Pakistan’s notoriety.

General Chrystal stated that factions of the Pakistani and Iranian intelligence agencies have been supporting the Taliban and other terrorist groups to carry out attacks on the US-led international forces in Afghanistan. As such, while the American strategy targets the stronghold of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, a thorough review of the destination of American aid would go a long way in easing India’s tensions. Moreover, pressure should simultaneously be applied on Islamabad to curb the activities of the ISI, which is of serious concern to New Delhi well.

Lately there have been some uncertain issues regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan. It is common knowledge that New Delhi has invested heavily in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. While General McChrystal feels that these investment benefits the Afghan people, in the same breathe, he says that New Delhi’s increasing clout is of concern to Pakistan. India does not have military ambitions in Afghanistan, and there is nothing wrong if it has demonstrated its diplomatic success there through humanitarian activities. Pakistan’s obsession with India as threat is not a new-found endeavor and it should not serve as logic for the American commander to give puzzling comments regarding India’s influence in the region.

As soon as Obama donned the Presidency, he raced ahead to distance himself from the policies of his predecessor Bush, and Afghanistan was one of the key issues, where he wanted to be different. But, the US military officials are frustrated and some US Congressional leaders are skeptical regarding the fickle nature of the Obama administration that might leave the military commanders in Kabul indecisive over the strategy they need to follow in this raging war.

Obama has always maintained that the intervention in Iraq was a war of choice and a big mistake that robbed resources and troops needed for more legitimate and necessary war in Afghanistan. As such, he had gone ahead with the policy of troop reduction in Iraq and that of troop surge in Afghanistan. But in the thick of things, he is now confronted with the fact that complexities are abound and maneuverability minimal. Just how Obama tackles Afghanistan would be an important determinant of his public popularity. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)