The Obama administration is in the throes of meting out a strategy towards Afghanistan, by sending in more reinforcements to pacify a Taliban insurgency and stamp out roots of terrorism and extremism, or letting Afghan troops and Islamic militants there sort it out themselves, thus averting too deep an embroilment of American troops in a possible quagmire far away from their homeland.
There are clear signs that Obama is titling towards the second option, which is cautious but politically safe, because the new administration does not want a recap of the bloody and failed Vietnam War at its disposal. However, any wavering of Obama’s stance is to send wrong signals to al-Qaida putting its national security in harm’s way. By all means, quitting is not a viable option but emboldening its enemies.
Critics in the United States also claim Obama has found new excuse to scale down troops in Afghanistan. The White House says the unsettling presidential election in Kabul, which was found ripe with frauds, is enough to dissuade America from fighting for a government of losing credibility.
Obama seems to be a quick learner. Upon his inauguration earlier in 2009, he made true on his campaign promise by ordering additional 21,000 combat troops into his major anti-terror battle field, rather than his predecessor George W. Bush’s choice of Iraq. He was basking in high public support then.
However, as insurgency waves have exacerbated in Afghanistan, and ground conflicts are getting uglier and costlier, Obama has found himself caught in an increasingly tricky land. The prospect he earlier believed seriously that more American troops could police the mountain-logged country, and get America’s No 1 security job abroad done, now dims.
Ever since the Afghan situation has deteriorated and an earlier anticipation of American prevailing there becomes elusive, the public support for more troop and resource build-up in Afghanistan has waned.
Opinion polls tell that more than half of Americans have suspicions about the new administration’s policy. Heeding the rising heat, Obama has initiated to re-appraise Afghanistan among his national security team, trying to avoid a confrontational approach with the public.
But it is not easy to change course. Already, Democrat critics and Republican opponents are pointing to Obama’s weakness, asserting a policy shift by the new president would compromise U.S. security. The people argue that a bungled job negating safe havens for terrorists in Afghanistan at the hands of Obama might in the future invite the same terrorist attacks on America as the “September 11″ 2001 catastrophe.
By the end of this year, American troops in Afghanistan will amount to 68,000. However, General Stanley McChrystal, the top American military commander there, said he will need tens of thousands more, some say at least 40,000 reinforcements, in order to defeat Taliban. He claimed that inadequate resources will “likely result in (American) failure”. The blunt warning from the top solider on the ground was heard across the aisle of the Capitol. It has also come at the White House as a grave challenge.
Obama’s team is probing for alternatives to a large ground force in Afghanistan. Some say al-Qaeda can be held at bay using America’s intensive intelligence, CIA Predator drones, cruise missiles, and raids by American special force commandos. But, it is known to all that the threat of terrorism cannot be bucked from a comfortable distance. Both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen have maintained that the American cannot fight the terrorists from afar.
Obama himself should have been advised that during Clinton reign in the 1990s, cruise missiles launched in the Arabic Sea aiming at Afghan targets did not do the job by rooting out the terrorist network. When al-Qaida regains safe sanctuary in Afghanistan, extending its recruitment and training there, it will be the nightmarish time for American presidents. So, it is up to Obama to render it over. Obama’s headache with Afghanistan September 25, 2009. By Li Hong, People’s Daily Online
No comments:
Post a Comment