A strategy in 'peril'

[Surmount]

A strategy in 'peril'

By Shamshad Ahmad |
Published The Nation: April 10, 2009

President Obama had promised change to the world. On coming to office, he no doubt faced formidable challenges both at home and abroad. But he vowed to meet them to bring about a "change" in the lives of Americans as well as in those of the people of the world. Domestically, he inherited an unprecedented fiscal crisis. He seems to be managing this crisis through his own "stimulus" plan as well as a multilateral approach recently agreed at the G-20 meeting in London.

Globally, President Obama had to grapple with two ongoing wars. The one in Iraq, he wanted to end "responsibly" and the "other war" in Afghanistan, he thought he would conclude by defeating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. No one disagreed with this agenda which inevitably required America to be at peace with itself and with the rest of the world. But this was predicated on how President Obama was going to deal with what his administration's security moguls have now started calling as AfPak, an acronym for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama entered the White House determined to pursue this conflict, having stated repeatedly that he would reinforce US troops in Afghanistan. He had also been hinting at more muscular CIA covert operations (drone attacks) in the "unacknowledged" parallel war across the Pakistani border. But in an interview on CBS's 60 Minutes programme on March 22, Obama acknowledged publicly that military force alone would not end the war in Afghanistan and admitted that "there has to be an exit strategy" for this war.

He said: "What we can't do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems," Obama said. "So what we're looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there's got to be an exit strategy....There's got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift." It is a welcome change in Obama's own stated position on "pursuing" the war in Afghanistan. Apparently this change was based on fresh readings of the "tide of disaster" under the military approach that had been swelling since at least 2005.

NATO forces were already losing ground to Taliban insurgents. American casualties have been growing even during the wintertime period which normally is supposed to be the off-season for combat. Military commanders had been speaking of a "surge" along the lines of what took place in Iraq, adding 30,000 troops to the US battle force. Obama approved only 17,000 additional troops as what he called a "down payment" on Afghan security. The overall security environment in Afghanistan continued to deteriorate.