Obama's War and Peace

Obama’s Afghanistan war and India
ND Batra
India has vital interest in the success of President Barack Obama’s surge-and-exit strategy for destroying the Al Qaeda-Taliban nexus and plexus in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Af-Pak region is not a passive sanctuary for the Taliban-Al Qaeda; it is the global supply-chain hub of terrorism.The US Federal prosecutors have charged a US citizen David C. Headley for aiding and abetting Pakistan-based Islamic terrorists who perpetrated the honorific bombing in Mumbai last year that killed 170 innocent people. Five more American citizens of Pakistani origin have been arrested in Pakistan for their suspected links with the Taliban-Al Qaeda and for planning to commit jihadist terrorist acts. Mr. Obama reminded the American people at West Point that the paramount goal is “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.”

It is an existential war against a global menace from which no one, not even Pakistan can escape, despite the fact that it nurtured the Taliban and has been providing safe havens to Al Qaeda. Although Mr. Obama strongly disagreed with the Iraq War which he regarded as a war of choice, the lessons of the war and insurgency cannot be lost, especially how the Bush administration’s well-planned troop surge worked enabling the US to handover security responsibilities to the Iraqi government.

Mr. Obama is not looking for a closure or an endgame because there can be none so long the United States remains an indispensable global power. Finishing the job does not mean quitting. Sixty-four years after World War II, the US maintains a significant military presence in Germany and Japan, as it does in South Korea since the armistice in 1953.

Central Asia is too important to be left to jihadists; or any aspiring power to dominate the region. Other countries may be rising but the United States is not declining. In fact the United States too is rising, even during the recession. Since the new surge-exit strategy announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, two most powerful cabinet members who have played a decisive role in shaping the new military thinking, have been going around on public forums to explain how the job will be done and how much flexibility is built into the exit date which the president set as middle of July 2011.

Secretary Gates, who also served the Bush administration in the same capacity and was responsible for the successful surge strategy in Iraq, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the mid-2011 exit strategy would be the beginning of transfer of security responsibilities to the Afghanistan government keeping the ground actualities in mind, nonetheless, with continuous partnership with the United States.

Success is not being conceptualized in binary terms—success/failure—but rather as a continuum, for which there will be assessment outcome metrics. Exit strategy is not abandonment, as Secretary Clinton told the Armed Services Committee, “We will help by working with our Afghan partners to strengthen institutions at every level of Afghan society so that we don’t leave chaos behind when our combat troops begin to depart.” This sounds a tall order to the naysayers, who wonder: Can Afghanistan secure itself? Can it govern itself?

Can it manage its borders? Again, these questions do not require yes or no answers but rather how much Afghanistan can do on its and how much help it would need from the US and the 43-nation NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan, which committed another 7000 troops in addition to the 30,000 troop surge announced by Mr. Obama.Except for Tony Blair’s reluctant Britain, Europe showed little enthusiasm for the Iraq War. But for fighting the Taliban-Al Qaeda in Af-Pak, European countries, who have been victims of terrorism, London, Madrid, Paris, for example, are absolutely committed.

A day after Mr. Obama announced the troop surge, the Nato Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, spoke unequivocally, "What is happening in Afghanistan is a clear and present danger to our citizens. Instability in Afghanistan means insecurity for all of us."

When the United States and Europe work together in solving international security problems, the probability of success increases as it happened in the Bosnia-Herzegovina War (1992-1995), the post-Yugoslavia break up tragedy that led to international conflict resulting in the ethnic killing and massacre of more than 100,000 people. Though belated, the Nato intervention brought the war to an end.

The hope of bringing peace to Af-Pak rests on the US-Europe strategy and concerted action, in which India must play a constructive role to protect its own national self-interest.

(ND teaches communications and diplomacy at Norwich University, US)