October 8, 2009 completes the eight years of U.S presence in Afghanistan inthe pretext of so called war on terror. However the success of mission’enduring freedom’ cannot be explained more clearly than the remarks ofGeneral Stanley McChrystal in his much touted assessment report in which hesays “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in thenear-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures –risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
October 8, 2009 completes the eight years of U.S presence in Afghanistan inthe pretext of so called war on terror. However the success of mission’enduring freedom’ cannot be explained more clearly than the remarks ofGeneral Stanley McChrystal in his much touted assessment report in which hesays “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in thenear-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures –risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” Thesituation in Afghanistan is worsening for U.S and its allies as up till now2009 has been the worst year in terms of casualties. Furthermore theresisting forces or what they call as insurgents have achieved a stalemateand according to U.S and other credible sources Taliban now controlapproximately 50-70% of Afghan territory as the fighting is spreading innorth and north western provinces which have traditionally been calm.
Despite all this battle field analysis the thing that has not come up in thelime light is the fact that at back home difficulty in formulating a shortterm and long term policies for ‘Af-Pak ‘ is quite evident. There are threemajor factors contributing to the confusion and complexity of policyformulation in Washington. One is the decreasing the domestic support forthe ‘mission’ in Afghanistan, second worsening economic situation and lastlydue to the combine effect of former factors increase division between thepolitical and military establishment over the approach towards Afghanistanproblem. Major recent surveys in America have shown that majority 59 % ofU.S population has disapproved Afghan campaign thereby backing away from’moral’ support that any war requires. So under this climate the Americanintelligentsia is clearly divided into two poles. One is labelingAfghanistan as a war of choice and the other pole proclaiming it as a war ofnecessity. Richard N.Haas, the president of the council of foreignrelations in an Op-Ed in New York Times says “A more radical alternativewould withdraw all United States military forces fromAfghanistan and center on regional and global counterterrorismefforts and homelandsecurity initiatives to protect ourselves from threats that might emanatefrom Afghanistan”
The second factor contributing in handcuffing American policy makers is theweak economic situation of U.S. The unemployment rate has risen to 9.7%, thehighest level for 26 years. Sal Guatieri, economist at BMO Capital marketssays “The good news is job losses are slowing. The bad news is joblessnesscontinues to mount,”. Three recently released government reports now pointto fiscal doomsday for America; and one of the reports, issued by theCongressional Budget Office (CBO), says so explicitly. The CBO paints twofuture scenarios for the U.S. budget deficit and the national debt. But it plainly declares that fiscal disaster will strike in EITHER scenario.Furthermore the CBO states that its fiscal disaster scenarios could causesevere economic declines for decades to come, including hyperinflation anddestruction of retirement savings. Guardian on 4th October 2009 in itsheadline “Will California become America’s first failed state?” explainedthe collapse of California which was formally ‘a golden state’. In relationto this the current health sector reforms introduced by Obama has created abacklash within the society. On 13th September 2009 thousands of protestorsgathered to stage a protest against Obama’s health care reforms. The London DailyTelegraph showed the placards on which slogans such as “Bury Obamacare withKennedy”, “Vote out All Incumbent Crooks”, “Do I ‘look’ like I want to’serve’ in Obama’s Nazi Youth militia? Arrest our Communist, Fascist,Racist, Lying, President NOW for Treason!!”were written.These two problems supplement the third and perhaps the most importantproblem while formulating the solutions for afghan calculus. While seeingthe domestic political climate it is very evident that American politicaland military establishments are deeply divided over afghan strategy. Due toabove mentioned dynamics and failure of Afghan mission as described byGeneral McChrystal a considerable number of senators and congressmen arereluctant to send more troops demanded by McChrystal. U.S House SpeakerNancy Pelosi said “I don’t think that there is a great deal of support forsending more troops to Afghanistan, in the country or in the congress”.The chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, Michigan DemocratCarl Levin says in a NY times interview that “I just think we should holdoff on a commitment to send more combat troops until these additional stepsto strengthen the Afghan security forces are put in motion”.Secondly there are two groups advocating different strategies forAfghanistan. One of them is lead by vice president Joe Biden which advocatesstatus co for forces in Afghanistan and instead persists on targetingPakistan in its Tribal areas and Quetta through drones and limited SpecialForces operations. In short Pakistan is their top priority. The militaryview point is presented by defense secretary Robert gates and Adm MikeMullen. They advocate increase in troops so that they could conduct targetedoperations in Taliban strong hold inside Afghanistan with particularemphasis on eastern side of Afghanistan in which tribal areas of Pakistancomes in their jurisdictions. An interesting expression of this problem cameout in the form of severing of relations between President Obama and generalStanley McChrystal. General Stanley in a conference in IISS in London openlyridiculed those who were not favor in his strategy. Telegraph reported that”The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meetingon board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the presidenthad arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.”
Fortunately Pakistan at this moment in time can be the only beneficiary ofAmerican domestic and strategic constraints provided that it plays its cardwith boldness and bravery. Rationality suggests that Pakistan’s alliancewith U.S in its so called war on terror is a failure by any standard. Withending its alliance with U.S and withdrawing its support Pakistan shouldpursue aggressive diplomacy with regional countries particularly China andRussian which are already wary of destabilizing Afghanistan under Americanumbrella. Pakistan should also lobby European countries which are skepticalof U.S sponsored Afghan mission and reluctant to send more troops to fightAmerican war. Britain, France and Germany are pressing for an internationalconference to persuade fickle Afghan government to take responsibility.Abdication of EU responsibilities will put further pressure on the alreadystrained trans-Atlantic alliance. This Pakistani diplomatic campaign wouldeffect the already mounting anti war sentiments in U.S and EU thus creatingenough international public opinion that would demand the withdrawal of U.Sled forces in Afghanistan. Furthermore Pakistan should also evict theAmerican forces and its private contractors from its soil. Pakistan’senormous potential in energy and mineral resources combined with rightpolitical system and economic policies would lead to massiveindustrialization and a sustainable concrete economy. This would ultimatelybe beneficiary for Land locked central Asia and Afghanistan thus forming aformidable block that would be independent of foreign intervention. ThusPakistan’s intelligentsia should hold the pen in their own hand and redrawthe maps of the region in line with their objectives.
