Barack Obama, winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, has committed 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan. In a somewhat low-key but nevertheless firm address at the West Point Academy (which trains US Army officers) yesterday, the US President reaffirmed that the interests of US national security lie in the escalation of the fighting in Afghanistan.
Obama was quick to make clear the goals of this escalation: (a) to ensure that Al-Qaeda finds no safe haven in the region; (b) to ensure that the Taliban do not win; and (c) to fortify the Afghan security forces. All laudable objectives. But stating objectives alone do not make them attainable.
The war on terrorism, and by proxy on Al-Qaeda, has been on for the past eight years. Osama bin-Laden is still free if he has not succumbed to disease. True, many in the top leadership of that organization have been eliminated. But who is to say what its true strength is even today, given the porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan? The US retaliation after 9/11 defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan handily. Yet they have now re-grouped and are well on their way to confronting the governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. As for the Afghan security forces, strengthening them may be a very iffy task. The political culture of Afghanistan, no matter what Obama mentioned in passing, is not democratic or cohesive. President Karzai has been re-elected by default; his sole opponent refused a re-run. The scenario that unfolded after the rout of the Taliban in 2001/2002 clearly indicates the factionalism embedded in Afghan society. Hence, the goals cited by Obama may be overly ambitious.
Furthermore, this business of exporting democracy - whether to Afghanistan or Iraq - is, to put it gently, a joke. Democracy must be home-grown. When a country has neither a democratic tradition nor a political culture which feeds democracy, no external force can shove democracy down feudal throats.
The US President further assured the world that America does not see itself in the role of a "patron" in Afghanistan, but rather sees itself as a "partner", for peace, security and development. Mr. Obama has a wonderful way with words, we are all aware of that. But let us say CNN or any news organization were to ask the man in the street in Kabul how he views the US. I doubt the answer would be "partner". Even the Afghan president would not be where he is without American patronage.
Getting down to geo-political basics, Afghanistan has an important border - with China. Is it wild imagination to surmise that the US would like to have access, whenever needed, to walk down the Wakhan Corridor? It already has Japan, South Korea and (arguably) Taiwan as allies to the east of China. Philippines and Thailand are additional allies to the south-east. Some of the ex-Soviet countries to China's north have also been wooed as allies. Pakistan, and increasingly India (especially as regards Tibet), are US friends to the south of China. Afghanistan is yet another ally in this "Great Game" of the 21st century. The sole super-power and the rising one are playing. Afghanistan is not an unimportant pawn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
US Containment of China along the East and South-East may look geographically logical on the map. Two other facts must also be emphasized. Firstly, a bluff taken seriously is more useful than a serious threat interpreted as a bluff. Secondly, if anybody interferes with China concerning Taiwan, be sure PRC possesses the will power to use its nuclear arsenal resolutely with swiftness.
However, no matter how effectively US may contain an area or nation, remember it has to realize that while doing so, it is not actually defending its turf. To fight for your survival against an aggressor and to try to strangulate another nation under the banner of adventurism are two distinct scenarios. Furthermore, does US justify its civilian supremacy model over the military when invading and threatening other sovereign and independent nations?
In this age of ICBMs and phantom jets you need not `gherao` a country to attack it.And also territorial conquest is not the modus operandi these days.
So I don`t buy argument that the US are there to surround China-that sounds like Maoist propaganda!
cupersAmericans interceded on behalf of their European allies and broke the back of Nazi Germany. Reagan threatened Star Wars and broke the will of the dogmatic Soviets. Communism crumbled just as Lenin had predicted Capitalism would crumble like a house of cards. Militant Islam is now on their crosshairs. Will an expansionist China be next on the agenda? Unfortunately we do need the globo-cop even in our own backyard to clear the vestige of Maoism.
Anon 8:27, is China really 'expansionist'? Maybe in the economic sense, but hardly militarily.
The "globo-cop" US has outsourced its Nepal policy to India. Do we need India even more in our backyard?
Govind, I would be the last person to expound Maoist propaganda. 'Territorial conquest' is not the issue, more pedantic issues such as oil and gas lines are.
What is happening in Iraq and Afghanisthan is another form of colonisation. But its a situation Obama inherited and he is looking at the best way out and to change the image from patron to partner. And from the geo-political front the great game has got out of control.
Obama sure has a way with word as you say. I hope he does not become like Tony Blair where amazing rhetoric "lae mohit paryo". But you nonetheless "phaso"!! Iraq and WMD.
I agree for the US, there may be an element of the "great game" of the old days to neutralize China as far as possible. Francis Younghusband, the first great game warrior, from Britain who shot the hapless Dalai Lama soldiers at Gyantse around 1901, thinking they were aligned with Soviet Union, comes to mind.
What was most sobering for me (and I quote you) sounds exactly like what is happening in Nepal and many other similar countries: "When a country has neither a democratic tradition nor a political culture which feeds democracy, no external force can shove democracy down feudal throats".
Finally I liked your walk down the Wakhan corridor, wherever that is. Willie Nelson should sing Baby, walking down the Wakhan corridor---to meet Chairman Mao.
Post a Comment