& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Obama's dilemma in Afghanistan

Syed Muazzem Ali
PRESIDENT Obama faces a major dilemma in Afghanistan as he looks at different exit strategies.
His top commanders and congressional Republicans are pushing for more troops, while the key Democrats in Congress are questioning whether a further commitment of blood and fund, especially at this time of grave economic recession, is prudent or justified. In a recent television interview, his opponent in last year's presidential election, Senator John McCain, maintained that Obama could not give up on Afghanistan and that withdrawal of US and Nato troops at this crucial stage would only lead to destabilisation of the entire region.
US public support for the Afghan war has declined in recent months as casualties have mounted, and the majority of Americans now believe that it is not worth the fight. On the ground, the Taliban have considerably regained their strength and now control more than half the country. So far this year, 223 U" military personnel
have been killed in Afghanistan. August was the deadliest month of the war so far with 51 American casualties.
The Pentagon has been asking for substantial additional troops for the last six months. Obama sent 21,000 additional troops in March, ostensibly to oversee the presidential elections, and asked his newly-appointed commander in Kabul, General Stanley McChrystal, to submit a comprehensive assessment report on the war. The general has asked for 30,000 to 40,000 additional troops to be deployed. He apprehends that, otherwise, the US would fail in its mission to damage and neutralise the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies. Currently, there are 68,000 US troops, with a Nato contingent of about 30.000.
Obama's national security advisers are also divided on the exit strategy. Vice-President Joe Biden reportedly favours a narrower counter-terrorist strategy and opposes sending of additional troops to Afghanistan, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, special envoy Holbrooke, and thr " ntagon big shots are pushing
for more comprehensive counterinsurgency program with additional troops. None of them are, however, calling for a complete withdrawal at this stage as that would further erode American credibility in the region and beyond.
Currently, they are all trying to bridge the gap between these two options. They would like the US troops to train the Afghan army to fight the Taliban militants, but are also aware that any counterinsurgency program would be effective only if the country's government enjoyed support of the majority of its people. Unfortunately, the Karzai government does not meet this basic requirement.
Hamid Karzai, once America's blueeyed boy, has fallen from grace in recent years. His ineffective government is viewed as a coalition of cronies and warlords. Washington had hoped that the August presidential election would produce a clear winner with new legitimacy; but Karzai rigged the vote so blatantly that it has further sharpened division and acrimony within thecountry.
Before undertaking any counterinsurgency option, with or without additional troops, Washington and her Nato allies would like to see a legitimate government installed in Kabul. Last month, Hillary Clinton and her British counterpart David Miliband warned Karzai that he “cannot count on western support" unless his election irregularities were properly and fairly addressed.
The Western powers would orefer to
have a national government where Karzai will share power with his arch-rival Abdullah. Unfortunately, Karzai has so far not shown any inclination to accommodate his opponent, and Abdullah also does not want to join any government unless it is an effective coalition. If Karzai does not yield, Obama might decide not to send additional troops.
Obama's objective is to work out a comprehensive strategy which will meet his election pledge of defeating the Taliban and their cohorts al Qaeda but, at the same time, does not cost too many additional American lives. He is moving cautiously on his commander’s request for additional troops, and had two rounds of meetings with his top advisers to "poke and prod" potential new strategies.
Any significant additional deployment in Afghanistan could also mean accelerating withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, where Obama's timetable is to & end the US combat mission on August 31, 2010, and thereafter to keep only about 30,000 to 50,000 troops to train and equip the Iraqi forces to fight the insurgents. Currently, 124,000 troops are stationed in Iraq, and the withdrawal process is scheduled to begin in the end of October. Much also depends on what happens at the upcoming Iraqi national elections next January and what impact it has on the national reconciliation process.
Obama faces tough options. No doubt the counterinsurgency program is a less costly and safer option but, given the
current prevailing situation in Afghanistan, it is unlikely to produce the desired results. The other program of calling for additional deployment along with the counterinsurgency program might cost more political capital and possibly more lives but is more likely to achieve his goal.
My gut feeling is that Obama will initially ask his commander to try out the first option with some additional support staff, but will eventuallv go for
the second option after making the current Afghan regime listen to their command. Obama, an ambitious young president, surely remembers George Orwell's famous saying: "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it," and would possibly not want to earn a stigma which could threaten his re-election in 2012.