With the United States having committed itself to the ‘endgame’ in Afghanistan, one would have thought that Washington would be engaged intensely in this strategic objective.
Current developments appear to indicate otherwise. For a start, the deepening economic crisis and the resultant budgetary squabbles in Congress have left President Obama a much diminished leader. Even if the US has hardly ever permitted its economic constraints to influence its global ambitions, its domestic preoccupations raise inevitable questions as to how this could effect US policy in this region, particularly its ability to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the endgame in Afghanistan.
As a candidate, Obama had been an enthusiastic supporter of the Afghan war, calling it a “war of necessity”, but disillusionment set in early and he was soon asking his generals to agree on “benchmarks” for success in the war. Finally, in his strategy speech on June 22 2011, he claimed that the US had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan, setting in motion a timetable for withdrawal of combat troops, though acknowledging that peace was not possible without a political settlement inclusive of the Taliban, while warning that focus of US counterterrorism efforts would shift from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
While this decision was shaped primarily by domestic political imperatives rather than by war strategy, recent developments in and around Afghanistan call into question US capacity to execute this strategy. For a start, while the US and its allies appear increasingly eager to wrap up their military engagement in Afghanistan, the Taliban are becoming bolder and more adventurous. Nothing signals this more starkly than the manner in which they bought down an American Chinook helicopter in Wardak province, killing 30 American Special Forces troops. Even if it was a ‘lucky shot’, it will have boosted the Taliban morale.
Within Afghanistan too, Karzai’s home base in Kandahar is gripped by fears over a power vacuum created by assassination of the president’s key allies, including his powerful brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai. These deaths have left the president exposed at a time when the US would have looked to him for a meaningful role in negotiations with Taliban.
The recent unexpected deterioration in Pakistan-US relations, especially between their military and intelligence organisations, which may even portend an unravelling of their ties, could become another complicating factor as regards US cooperation with Pakistan, particularly in reaching out to the Taliban. Moreover, the exacerbation of Saudi-Iranian ties and continuing hostility in US relations with Iran will not help either.
And finally, the new cast of ‘principals’ in Washington in critical national security-related assignments lack both the stature and the nuanced world view of their predecessors. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, a proven hand, had retained close rapport with his party compatriots, something that his gaffe-prone successor Leon Panetta lacks. The highly respected Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, who was also viewed as sympathetic to Pakistan, has been replaced by the comparatively less known General Dempsey. It is, however, the new CIA chief who could prove a huge gamble. Though competent and intelligent, General Petreaus is unabashedly ambitious and visibly contemptuous of those that dare to differ with him. Having failed to make any headway in Afghanistan, Petreaus is a frustrated general, determined to burnish his Afghan legacy. He is not viewed as a friend of Pakistan either and his presence in Langley may inject fresh tensions in relations with the White House, as well as in ties with the ISI.
It is nevertheless essential that the US formulate a comprehensive game plan and undertake a sustained effort to ensure that its exit from Afghanistan does not throw that country back into the throes of another civil war. That would be disastrous for the entire region, but, at the same time, a satisfactory conclusion could strengthen peace, stability and cooperative relations in this long-tormented region.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2011.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Louis the 15th is supposed to have said, 'Apres Moi le Deluge'. Why should the US also not say 'After US the civil war'.
Once US has to exit Afghanistan after incurring a huge cost and nothing to show for it, if the region survives and prospers, it would further prove US entry in Afghanistan wrong. Why should the US want to be proven wrong at its own cost.
And who will be the beneficiaries of ensuring an orderly exit. An 'ally' who took money and yet undermined the US and a proxy of this untrustworthy ally (read Haqqanis) who has US blood on its hands.
No sir, if anything US would be better advised to partition Afghanistan to secure some space for itself and leave the rest for others to fight over. So long as they are busy with their internecine wars US would be secure.
Mr. Irshad,
Please do educate us since you seem to be an expert on Pakistan. The younger generation, as you put it, may be running the show but how are they actually doing a good job. Please do enlighten all of us. And it is interesting that you take a swipe at Amb. Fatemi's writings since you have yet to make an educated comment on the actual substance of the article instead of getting personal. I did not realize this forum was for personal attacks. And since you stated, "they do not need your analysis and advices please", I must say that you are one of the ones actually taking the time to read it. Why "waste" your time reading advice from an older generation that in your eyes failed miserably. Is it because you have nothing better to do or that no one wants to take your advice...OR is it because what the "older generation" is stating may be something you and many others can learn from. They do say that history is the best predictor of the future.
Author concludes that "It is nevertheless essential that the US formulate a comprehensive game plan and undertake a sustained effort to ensure that its exit from Afghanistan does not throw that country back into the throes of another civil war."
Pray, this is "essential" to whom? My guess answer - Pakistan. "Undertake sustained efforts" - whom? Answer - USA.
Pray, WHY would USA do that? Answer by Author - "That (Afghanistan in civil war) would be disastrous for the entire region, but, at the same time, a satisfactory conclusion could strengthen peace, stability and cooperative relations in this long-tormented region."
By "region" - you mean Af-Pak Sir. Because China, India and Iran already have capability of - insulating to greater extent (then Pakistan) from the effectes of aftermath.
As for noble goals of peace and stability of the region - well Sir, WHY would a retreating American Army care even a bit for that outcome?
With regards to "Cooperative relations" - well Sir, Govt of Pakistan has for a long time player a role of "spoiler state" by blocking all trade routes between Central and South Asia. So ball is in their court.
However, what we all are missing is "End" bit in the "Endgame" is not really going to be an "End". Americans (at least as of now) have no intention of leaving Afghanistan fully. That can be explained by the seond bit of the word. "game" in the "Endgame". IF their economy recover and IF they can afford, Americans would be rather remain right in heart of Middle East and Central/South Asia - which is Afghanistan - a perfect advantageous position - a very desirable outcome for American interests in geopolitical "game"
So the most likely scenario is Americna military through Afghan Army, its american military "advisors" and drones controlling 25% of Afghanistan and rest of Afghanistan thrown to wolves of civil war for decades to come - if not more.
Of all the people you understand this very well Sir! So "Prospects" for endgame would keep changing sir, as this game is anything by ENDgame!
@Irshad Khan:
your comments are so nice
Afghanistan has been a playground for too long. The Afghan people have suffered intolerably for decades as different Powers played violent games in their country. My sympathies are with a majority of the citizens of that hapless country, not the various armed bandits that prey there. While all Powers interfering there preach selflessness and sacrifice, their actions are contrary. This war will end in a way no one wants it to. All the players will eat humble pie including Pakistan which has a record of the worst excesses there. USA, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and to a lesser extent India are going to all be in the party of losers alongside Pakistan. It seems that what is good for Afghanistan is in nobody's interest but the forces for divine justice will ensure that the high price for perfidy will be paid by all the countries who are supposedly pursuing their narrow national interests, proportionately. Kabaristan, it will be for all of them !
Mr. Fatimi, you and many others in your time of running the affairs of this country miserably failed to deliver any thing good to the country and made it a stooge of super Powers. Now you are trying to divert the attention of younger generation who are now running the show, better than old ones. People like you should sit calmly somewhere at a comfortable/luxury place with the gifts/souvenirs/decoration pieces all around, collected as part of the duty and consume the costly cigars, also collected in the same way. World has changed now and its now young`s world, they do not need your analysis and advices please.