Troops for Afghanistan?
By Shahid Javed Burki
Tuesday, 13 Oct, 2009
OCTOBER may turn out to be the defining month for the presidency of Barack Obama. This is not only because the US Congress will need to reach a decision on whether it will support the president’s efforts to reform America’s dysfunctional health system.
Nor will solely be because of the progress — or the lack of it — that the Obama administration, working with Congress, is likely to make in reforming the financial regulatory system.
What will really define the Obama presidency is the decision he takes on Afghanistan. A couple of weeks ago, Obama met his National Security Council to review the request he had received from Gen Stanley McChrystal, the top American commander in Afghanistan, to send 40,000 additional American troops to steady the rapidly deteriorating situation in the field. The request was leaked to the press through Bob Woodward, the veteran Washington-based journalist, in an effort to put pressure on the administration to accede to the general’s demand. This was a classic Washington operation with two sides on an important issue involving the public to support the position they were taking.
The military’s efforts to increase the number of soldiers fighting what has come to be known as Obama’s war has been opposed by a powerful group within the administration, led by Vice-President Joe Biden who has strong links in Congress. That is important since there are a number of powerful figures in Congress who let it be known that they would not be in favour of increasing troop strength in Afghanistan. It was awkward for the president that the opposition came from the members of his own party whose support he badly needed.
The McChrystal plan is based on the counter-insurgency strategy the Americans implemented in Iraq as the tenure of President George W. Bush was coming to a close. The strategy had four parts. Additional troops were to be sent to Iraq to secure some of the critical areas in the country, in particular its large cities. A large number of Iraqis were to be trained to man the country’s army and the police force. Alliances were to be made with the insurgents who were prepared to give up their weapons and work with the government and the Americans. And, serious development efforts were to be put in to improve the living conditions of the citizenry.
Even with considerable opposition from the Democrats, President Bush accepted the strategy and allowed a “surge” in American troops. The strategy seems to have worked as the level of violence has declined significantly which has allowed the Americans to begin to pull out their troops from the Iraqi countryside. Gen McChrystal recommended the adoption of the same approach in Afghanistan.
The opposing view as represented by Vice-President Biden also has a number of elements. America’s military operations in Afghanistan would be limited. Ground forces would be used sparingly, most of the work being done by special forces who would have Predators attack high-value targets, picking those who were resolute in their opposition to America and the presence of foreign troops on Afghan soil. Washington would concentrate its efforts on Pakistan that had the institutional capacity to fight the Taliban provided its military was given appropriate training equipment. Both of this could be done by the Americans.
In addition, the Americans would provide Pakistan a great deal of economic support. A bill authorising $7.5bn in economic aid to be spent over a period of five years was passed and awaits the president’s signature.
It will be of concern to Pakistan how President Obama views and acts on the question of the size of the American contingent in Afghanistan. With the debate on the issue heating up in Washington, there have been statements in Pakistan that the country’s military was readying itself for a major battle with the Taliban in South Waziristan. The news that the preparations had been finalised also came via news leaks from the Pentagon.
As has happened in the case of so many other policy disputes, it was The Washington Post that was used by both sides to project their case to the public. Earlier in the month, the newspaper carried an item titled ‘Pakistan plans key offensive’ to report that “Pakistan’s military is preparing what may be one of the most significant offensives in years against a major Taliban stronghold near Afghanistan….The operation in and around the tribal area known as South Waziristan will target Taliban fighters from the powerful Mehsud tribe”. It was revealed by a senior Pakistani official who talked to the newspaper that the military had “made all arrangements, and a full-scale operation against the Taliban could begin anytime”.
Defence experts in Washington let it known that the two initiatives — the increase in the size of the American contingent and the move by the Pakistan military — were parts of the same strategy. The military part of the strategy was to deny the Taliban insurgents the operational space on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border. At the same time, there should be a concentrated effort to bring economic development to the people on the two sides. The passage of the aid to Pakistan bill by the US Congress was one important step in that direction. President Obama was prepared to take the time for the two sides to debate the issues. Differing opinions in Pakistan have made it unclear as to which side of the argument the Pakistanis would take.