Failure of Obama's Af-Pak policy
With nearly 4000 additional military trainers announced for Afghanistan and a reward of US$7.5 billion for Pakistan, the Af-Pak policy is slowly turning out to be a confused attempt at outsourcing, rather than a surge.
TWO IMPORTANT developments took place in the last couple of weeks, which in some ways are directly and indirectly related to the 'failing' Afghan-Pak policy of President Obama. The first development relates to the deaths of 15 British soldiers in renewed attacks against the Taliban in Afghanistan, in what some may call the third phase in the ongoing bloody Afghan war. The second, relates to the recent riots in China, essentially marketed by the liberal media as an uprising by the minority Uighurs, against age-old oppression, which was heavily crushed by the government. In reality, the riots were a result of ethno-religious conflict between Muslim minority Uighurs, instigated by extremists in Central Asia, and the Al-Qaeda and the Buddhist majority Han Chinese. Now one may ask, how are these distant events related. We will slowly get to the point.
With nearly 4000 additional military trainers announced for Afghanistan and a reward of US$7.5 billion for Pakistan, for doing basically nothing, the Af-Pak policy is slowly turning out to be a confused attempt at outsourcing, rather than a surge. The combination of a hopelessly inept government in Kabul, an unchanged Pakistan and an indifferent and suspicious India, is proving to be too deadly for Washington to handle. Also United States of America seems to have forgotten the three major lessons from Vietnam, defined objectives, short-term goals and a clear exit strategy.
There seems to be a lack of clarity on the plan of action. On the one hand, the drone attacks, though fewer in number, continues in Pakistan. On the other hand, we have days of same old rhetoric from the White House. The idea behind the policy seems to be that they need to fix Pakistan first to take care of Afghanistan. It took them billion dollars on the thinktank industry and a change of power in the White House to come out with this. And though I am not supporting a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter -type idea of bombing from the Nile to the Ganges, to solve all problems, I do wonder at times whether this new pacifist attitude of Washington is actually helping re-arrange chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic.
The American inability to draw an essentially selfish and stoic mainland Europe is also a diplomatic failure. Europe, exclusive of Britain, only jumps to the international arena when its immediate interests are affected, or a war is going on in its nearest vicinity. We remember the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) bombings of Kosovo and the frantic diplomatic efforts during the very recent Russia-Georgia war. But when it comes to policing the troubled third world, be it Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is entirely the burden of America, with Europe committing none of its firepower, yet grabbing the majority of the re-construction pie.
Another hilariously impractical theory which is surely going to spell doom and in the process jeopardise the whole region, is the policy of negotiation with the Taliban. When will the elite analysts in the Pentagon learn that there is no such thing as a good Talibani. Good Muslims, yes, definitely...but good Talibanis...never! How can people, who are steeped in medieval ideologies, be classified as good or bad? Moreover, the USA seems to have forgotten the very important lesson from Saddam - that one can always change jerseys when the heat is on, only to return to what one does best, which in the case of the Taliban - is destruction.
A few months back I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama, with keen interest, not because of the fact that I supported him, or I wanted to see a change for the sake of change. I was curious about what the man could do, in such a time when the World was losing against extremism. But seeing the differing reactions of China and the USA in matters that are inevitably inter-related, I was sure that we were being given the same candy in a new pack. 'Hope' is not a strategy and it is by no means an answer to the need for decisive and compelling action.
Eloquence and good speeches may convince voters and win elections, but they do not change the realities on the ground. War is a man's business, and it needs courage and determination to win it. The real world is a different place, with a 'failed' nuclear Pakistan and a threatening North Korea in the hands of a psychotic despot. George W Bush, might have had a low IQ, but he was never shy of taking rude but necessary action, which is one quality of a world leader. The world is still waiting to see the 'acclaimed and famed' leadership of Barack Obama which won him the elections.
There seems to be a lack of clarity on the plan of action. On the one hand, the drone attacks, though fewer in number, continues in Pakistan. On the other hand, we have days of same old rhetoric from the White House. The idea behind the policy seems to be that they need to fix Pakistan first to take care of Afghanistan. It took them billion dollars on the thinktank industry and a change of power in the White House to come out with this. And though I am not supporting a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter -type idea of bombing from the Nile to the Ganges, to solve all problems, I do wonder at times whether this new pacifist attitude of Washington is actually helping re-arrange chairs on the deck of the sinking Titanic.
The American inability to draw an essentially selfish and stoic mainland Europe is also a diplomatic failure. Europe, exclusive of Britain, only jumps to the international arena when its immediate interests are affected, or a war is going on in its nearest vicinity. We remember the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) bombings of Kosovo and the frantic diplomatic efforts during the very recent Russia-Georgia war. But when it comes to policing the troubled third world, be it Palestine, Iraq, or Afghanistan, it is entirely the burden of America, with Europe committing none of its firepower, yet grabbing the majority of the re-construction pie.
Another hilariously impractical theory which is surely going to spell doom and in the process jeopardise the whole region, is the policy of negotiation with the Taliban. When will the elite analysts in the Pentagon learn that there is no such thing as a good Talibani. Good Muslims, yes, definitely...but good Talibanis...never! How can people, who are steeped in medieval ideologies, be classified as good or bad? Moreover, the USA seems to have forgotten the very important lesson from Saddam - that one can always change jerseys when the heat is on, only to return to what one does best, which in the case of the Taliban - is destruction.
A few months back I watched the inauguration of Barack Obama, with keen interest, not because of the fact that I supported him, or I wanted to see a change for the sake of change. I was curious about what the man could do, in such a time when the World was losing against extremism. But seeing the differing reactions of China and the USA in matters that are inevitably inter-related, I was sure that we were being given the same candy in a new pack. 'Hope' is not a strategy and it is by no means an answer to the need for decisive and compelling action.
Eloquence and good speeches may convince voters and win elections, but they do not change the realities on the ground. War is a man's business, and it needs courage and determination to win it. The real world is a different place, with a 'failed' nuclear Pakistan and a threatening North Korea in the hands of a psychotic despot. George W Bush, might have had a low IQ, but he was never shy of taking rude but necessary action, which is one quality of a world leader. The world is still waiting to see the 'acclaimed and famed' leadership of Barack Obama which won him the elections.
 | Previous Post |
| Next Post |  |
Login
 Login through Social ID
|
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.
