“He’s only ‘promised ’ to undo what Bush had done. Is that enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize?”
This was the reaction of a journalism student in India, quite similar to voices around the world, heard over the Internet. Netizens have been irked by the decision to award a Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama. Interestingly, even the Taliban doesn’t seem amused. Their spokeseman Zabihullah Mujahid told AFP in a telephonic conversation from an undisclosed location, “We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan”.
Among the many issues that bother critics of American policies in the ‘War against Terror’, is the Afghanistan strategy. The ‘Nobel’ announcement has has not been received been taken too kindly in the wake of increased Taliban attacks on the US mMilitary camps in Afghanistan.
American forces have been in Afghanistan for eight years now, after former President George W. Bush decided to “‘strike against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime”.” After most of the Taliban strongholds had fallen, Bush focused his attention on Iraq. By October 2006, there were 148,000 US troops in Iraq and just only 21,000 in Afghanistan.
John Nagl of the Centre for a new American Security says, “There's no doubt that the United States thought that we had succeeded in Afghanistan, that we had Osama bin Laden on the run, that Al Qaeda could not regroup, that this was a war that was essentially in the bag. We gave the Taliban time to regroup, chased 'em out of Afghanistan, they regrouped in Pakistan, and now the years of neglect are coming back to haunt us".
Indeed, that seemed to be an erroneous judgment on part of the American administration. Some may call it a show of sheer arrogance.
As the war enters its ninth year, passionate voices debate as to how to proceed there is a serious question indeed not clear. Afghanistan elicits such passion because people believe that in rendering his decision of Afghanistan, President Obama will declare himself competent on several larger issues.
Obama approved dispatching 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan earlier this year amidst calls for a complete pull out form the war ravaged country. US Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal has asked for deployment of as many as 40,000 additional troops to fight a resurgent Taliban. He thinks that increased troops, combined with the Afghan police, will help him keep law and order in the country; not to mention, destroy the resurgent Taliban.
Meanwhile, vote-rigging allegations have plunged Afghanistan into an electoral crisis at a time when Taliban militants are expanding from their southern strongholds into the north and west of the country. Bolstering Afghanistan’s weak and corruption-ridden government is thought to be a key to President Obama’s strategy for curbing Taliban’s insurgency.
Plummeting security, rampant corruption, a flourishing narco-mafia and a badly flawed election have combined to convince many Afghans that the much vaunted “democracy” thrust upon them is yet another trick played by the international community, intent on furthering its interests at Afghanistan’s expense.
President Obama and senior administration policy makers now face the question of prudence regarding further escalation of conflict. The US Congress is divided and will take up a massive defense spending bill this week even before the President settles on a direction for war. But one thing is for certain. Obama won’t walk away from flagging a war.
If the President agrees to McChrystal’s request, he will negate his promise of change as far as national security policy is concerned. The war in Afghanistan may continue beyond his term and consume billions of dollars, leading to the death of hundreds or even thousands more American soldiers.
America is battling a poorly defined enemy, in pursuit of murky goals. Support for the war is fading at home, while disappointment at the slow pace of reform in Afghanistan is rapidly giving way to rage at the failure of foreign efforts in the country. Officials across the Obama administration acknowledge that the Taliban has have become a lot stronger in the recent years.
So what would actually happen if the foreign troops pack up and leave? The Taliban who have already become tougher during their eight-year jehad would most likely end up controlling the state of affairs in the country and Afghanistan would once again descend into chaos.
If the Afghanistan war becomes a consuming issue of Obama’s presidency – as Iraq became for his predecessor, Vietnam forof Lyndon Johnson, Korea for Harry Truman – it may lead to a compromise on the prospects of reforms on a larger scale.
Defeating the Taliban, fostering an Afghan government and army that can stabilize the country are daunting tasks, and requiringe years of patience. Even the efforts on the lines proposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal may fail. There should be no doubts as to how high the stakes of this conflict are. A Taliban victory would be a catastrophe that neither America nor Afghanistan can afford.
The biggest question, however, is whether this American President will make “change” possible. Only time will tell.
1
