The steely strategy syndrome
November 19, 2009 I M Mohsin
Mike Gerson in Washington Post advocates that toughness be reflected in the forthcoming strategy of President Barack Obama. As the latter tends to be very statesmanlike, most of the rightwing stalwarts appear inclined to project it as a sign of weakness. Having got used to the laughable lingo of George W Bush, they have forgotten how another brilliant American, Bill Clinton, could mesmerise his interlocutors. Americans must appreciate that their president should carry a sound image based on his impression as a decent human being who exudes goodwill for the right causes at home and abroad. This will not take away the military threat that the US can pose. However, pugnacity pays possibly during a real war.
President Obama had his eighth session on Afghanistan before flying for his first Asian tour. Recently, he has talked repeatedly about his 'responsibility' to ensure that he does not send more Americans in harm's way. His words echo his unique conscientious consideration. Even some rightwing loonies have to concede that Obama is a patient listener like some of his illustrious predecessors. Now he must be working out the cost-benefit ratio of his decision on Afghanistan. Many, at home and abroad, respect his deliberative urge to weigh all options before risking more American lives in this ill-advised venture handed down to him, besides other disasters, by his raw precursor. As the US awaits the installation of Karzai for his second-term, many of the American families must be worried as the die would then be cast.
In Afghanistan itself, the situation is rather disturbing, as the Taliban are on the rampage. Lately, too many US troops have been put on DI-list. The army has acknowledged the shattering stress spreading among their deployed forces which is also, generally, causing demoralisation. It is now trying to make more psychiatrists available to the troops to offset the negative trend. There appears to be a dearth of specialists who would bite the bullet. In a statement, the US Army has voiced concern over the number of suicides and mounting drug addiction.
Pakistan has been experiencing hellish bombing, particularly in Peshawar. The worst one was launched last Friday against the ISI-building. It was an awfully powerful blast which shook areas far and wide. The death toll initially was 11 while about a hundred injured were taken to the hospitals. It is rather dispiriting for Pakistanis to see that even their much-maligned spy agency is not secured against such subversion, like the GHQ. People in Peshawar are perplexed which galvanizes the grapevine. One very popular buzz is that such subversion succeeds only with the help of US 'agencies'. The people worry for the security of their homeland in view of such complex fears which raises sundry squalid spectres. Los Angeles Times on November 15 wrote: "...disclosures a la George Tenet that the CIA has been offering "bounties" to ISI would further demonise the powerful.
Despite the serious glitches, the army operation is going on in South Waziristan successfully as per the ISPR. Many argue that the public is paying heavily for the same, besides the army and police. General Aslam Beg, a former COAS, has alleged that the US has 'shifted' the TTP remaining leadership to a safe haven in Afghanistan. Pakistan's civil society is developing serious doubts about the American designs in the area. The terrorist backlash apart, such hype is strongly influenced by the US espousal of India which has, of late, developed strong strategic links with Israel. Observers point out that India hiked her cooperation in morbid fields since the US started frowning at Iran over the nuclear issue. As such, while the initial US-India nuclear deal was seen as a way to contain China, the latest moves, actual or otherwise, provoke complex fears. Such a pointer is reinforced by the fairly frequent fraying over Pakistan's "Quetta Shura" and nuclear nuances in US, which dents the latter's goodwill. This is believed to be done at the insistence of the Indian lobby.
In Afghanistan the US has, generally, tried the 'steely' strategy for nine years. The main component of that policy appeared to be indiscriminate bombings by the air-force and advanced fire power. Resultantly, there were frequent killings of civilians which prompted even Karzai to protest. Moreover, the Pakistani territory has been treated the same way, at times, drawing similar overtures from the government while the US kept on insisting that they had the nod from the powers-that-be. Such mass murders have been an elixir for the 'enemy', which enabled the Taliban to re-emerge in Afghanistan with a bang. Those ridiculing Obama are acting naïve as Afghanistan, despite the bravery of the Vietnamese, could end up as much worse than their East-Asian quagmire. Its history, geography and traditions make it a conundrum for those who want to tame it with 'steel'. Ask Gorbachev!
Obama has to use the 'soft power' for a settlement. Pakistan remains the lynchpin while Saudis can help. Ambassador Eikenberry's sterling advice should prompt a definitive diplomatic discourse. First, the US must create goodwill by defining its mission as suggested by General Petraeus. Second, Obama had said that Dostum's mass murder and persecution of the Taliban prisoners shall be investigated. It has been downgraded like the Israeli settlements issue. Third, the US must release evidence to convince Afghans about the 9/11 official version. Fourth, assure reconstruction to AfPak caused by the destruction during the last nine years regardless of the domestic politics to promote peace at home and abroad. If peace returns such obligation should not be treated as a 'free lunch'. US bolted out of AfPak after the collapse of the Soviet Union to crown itself as the sole superpower, today it is paying for the same senile step.
The US may be facing furious fire constantly in Afghanistan, but Pakistan could be equally worrisome. Much against the soap operas, it has the capacity to cope with known challenges as former British Ambassador Barrington asserted. Its elected government is dogged by existential issues as per CBS News. Obama's call to "do more" appears a sham. He should heed the comment of a CIA officer published in Los Angeles Times on November 15: "They have people dying almost every day." The official added: "Sure, their interests don't always match up with ours. But things would be one hell of a lot worse if the government there was hostile to us." As Bible bespeaks blithely, "friend, go up higher"!
The writer is a former secretary interior.