Afghanistan Looking For Change

Afghanistan looking for change





Whilst the world joined celebrations of the great electoral triumph by U.S. congressman Senator Barak Obama -the new President elect of the U.S, for the change they aspired for, air strikes in northern Kandahar killed dozens attending the wedding party. A sharp contrast of celebrations between northern and southern hemisphere one might declare. There arose a bleak request- a cry in the wilderness by Hamid Karazi to end civilian causalities. But for how long this rampage and rein of terror continues, would remain a problem to be countered by newly elected leadership in White House. The next president's single most foreign policy challenge would remain the conflict in Afghanistan, the war that has pushed the world's strongest military to break point without dealing a decisive blow to Al-Qaida. Afghans are hopeful that a loud and clear mandate for change will extend to U.S. policy towards Afghanistan so as to transform their grim lives. Increasing insecurity, rising costs and growing lawlessness have left many Afghans sceptical of the US-dominated Western intervention, which began eight years ago. Truly the president elect is inheriting a venomously complex situation that has left an estimated 4,000 dead this year alone. Eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the country has changed little. Indeed, the Taleban seems to be in a stronger position now then at any time since it was removed from power in 2001, helped in large part by chronic instability in Pakistan.
Afghanistan and more precisely Afghanistan/Pakistan conflict is posing as the toughest strategic point and as a front-line against terror in-tray for Obama. Comparison would be drawn in the longer period of time when world would see Obama’s strategy to combat terror in the land of unruly. Newly president elect calls Afghanistan the "central front" in the war on terrorism, but its lawless border with Pakistan also demands his attention. Before Obama's victory, Pakistani premier Yousaf Raza Gillani had warned the next U.S. president to halt missile attacks near his border or risk turning his nation against America. Mr Obama also received a harsh reminder from angered Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. Of course, that will prove difficult given Obama's repeated vow to strike at militants in Pakistan even without help from the country's leaders and on “actionable intelligence”.
Obama also plans to immediately cut the 130,000-strong U.S. force in Iraq while prioritising Afghanistan, which hosts only about one-fifth as many American troops. In Afghanistan, Obama has said he would add about 7,000 troops to the U.S. force of 31,000. Pentagon officials are poised to more than double that increase - saying they need 15,000 to 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan. His popularity in Europe may help Obama persuade NATO into committing more to Afghanistan. Still, no one knows how the Democratic president-elect will get on with David Petraeus, the top U.S. general in the Middle East, who was given a free hand by George Bush to pour resources into Iraq.
Critics of Obama's Afghanistan strategy have pointed out that increasing troop in the country would not be appropriate and remain ineffective or even counter-productive without a stronger government in Kabul to fight for. While crossing the border and attacking the militant hideouts would fatally weaken the country’s already fragile democracy, bolster extremism and anti American sentiments. Obama’s Afghanistan policy would be a strategy of "surge first, and then negotiate" - that is, building up security in cities with additional US troops before beginning talks with Taliban "reconcilables" about how to settle the conflict. That approach would fit well with Obama's view on Afghanistan, one key adviser said. His most likely move on from the current U.S. strategy will be similar to that latterly tried successfully by the Bush administration in Iraq – paying local forces to fight the Taleban. Formation of anti-extremist “Lushkers’ by the local tribal leaders to support military in fight against the insurgents in the tribal region is one of the continuation of the strategic moves that has been in focus by the Republicans and now Democrats in the House.

For bigger show in Afghanistan, Mr Obama must be looking for his western allies to support. The political climate in Europe has changed beyond recognition since invasion of Iraq. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown claims to enjoy a good working relationship with US as demonstrated by them in recent economic chaos. Some see the new president as having more “European” approach towards the politics thus allies will have an easier time dealing with Obama. It would also depend on the larger troop’s contribution that has recently been marred with political erosion but the gloss will soon wear thin if they do not give him the practical support he wants. Western forces currently deployed in Afghanistan – including some 8,000 British soldiers – can hold their own against the insurgents, but they are involved in a war of political attrition. Already Canada, whose armed forces have borne much of the hard fighting in the country, has set an end date of 2011 for withdrawal. Other countries may follow – and the Taleban knows this. It doesn't have to win, it just must not lose. Afghanistan might be the right war, but its resolution will require much of the young president-elect's attention.

The perception that western troops do not take enough care to avoid killing civilians has added to resentments felt by many Afghans at foreign forces' presence, ongoing insecurity and the lack of improvements in living standards. For the Afghan population, the situation remains in the balance and while the Kabul government is remote for many, the Taleban operates among them– whether those communities like it or not. One of Mr. Obama's senior aides, Frances Fragus Townsend, a former Homeland Security adviser, outlined some of the incoming administration's concerns, especially about the potential for conflict to create "spin-off" operations linked to global terrorism. He said: "The most immediate counter-terrorism issue is the Pakistan tribal region; it represents the greatest threat to American security interests." It is also question in point here that Bush administration used much of the tanks and less of the steamrollers to reconstruct the roads and buildings for Afghans. If Obama is focusing of shifting the war theater to Afghanistan, he would have to keep in focus that the shifting the war theater would not held sway but increase demand for the positive change that Afghan nation deserve and require.
The question would remain that would next president elect be able to deliver the change that he has promised for the world and Afghanistan at large? It to be seen in the context of Obama’s commitment per se. Obama sharply criticised Mr Karzai during the election campaign for his failure to curb rampant corruption or the drugs trade. Now we have to wait and see how Obama takes on with Karazai as the later is looking forward for the elections in the coutnry in next fall. A political change in Afghanistan would require to broader understanding and sheer commitment to deliver form the allied forcese and new US adminstration.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.(IPRI)