President Barack Obama promises a new deal for Afghanistan. In his review of the strategy to deal with terrorism in Afghanistan, the President unveiled a comprehensive set of measures to build Afghanistan. Though eliminating terrorism will remain a fundamental aspect of the strategy, unlike the earlier Bush administration, Obama administration will also concentrate equally on building the economy, government institutions, involving key regional players, insuring transparency and accountability and providing greater financial assistance. It seems to be an inclusive strategy which was long awaited. Unlike the Bush administration, the current administration is not obsessed with a Pakistan centric approach which we all know has miserably failed.

The President has also urged the Senate to pass a bill providing direct assistance to the extent of $ 1.5 billion to Pakistan every year for the next five years. This amount will be used to build schools, roads, hospitals and strengthen Pakistan’s democracy. This is again an attempt to build up a holistic strategy.

President Obama has warned that he will not allow Afghanistan to be a ‘safe haven’ for terrorist organisations like the Al-Qaeda. With respect to this, he plans to increase the number of NATO forces in Afghanistan to 134,000 by 2011, up from the present level of 80,000.

 However, pooling of the troops will not be an easy job, particularly when most of the nations are experiencing fatigue over the continuous war. President Obama is also aware of this fact and therefore, is trying out a more pragmatic approach. Instead of asking for a big chunk of contribution in the form of troops, he is pushing his European counterparts to share some of the extra cost and building up civilian efforts.

Mr. Obama views both Pakistan and Afghanistan as a ‘single theatre’. Therefore, Richard Holbrooke was appointed as a special envoy to the Afghan-Pak region. Mr. Holbrooke is of the view that the real problem lies in Pakistan. Many of the Jihadi groups, he said, were operating from Pakistan. In the recent G20 summit, Mr. Obama also expressed concerns over the camps in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The President was very clear that "a campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone."

"To advance security, opportunity, and justice, not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces, we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers," Obama said. "That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.”

It has been more than eight years that NATO had stayed in Afghanistan. Undoubtedly, this new deal seems to be more promising. However, a look into Afghan’s history tells us that the Afghan blood cannot tolerate any foreign presence on their land. The sooner the NATO exits, the better it is.

 


Comments
on Apr 04, 2009

Obama's plan for Afghanistan can be summed up in his basic four stage plan for the middle east. 1. Self-humiliation of the US. 2. Appeasement. 3. Withdrawal of forces. 4. Surrender.

Note: First two stages apply to all foreign policy, including "friendly" nations. When the USA is as "significant" as Europe in international policy making, he will not have to worry about it so much.

Effect: When Europe, and to some degree Asia, run the US economy and military (the Europeanization of the US), Mr. Obama will have someone else to blame besides Bush for his continued "change" platform in 2012.

 

 

on Apr 06, 2009

hey nitro...

first of thanks for taking out time to read my blog...

I do not know about the first two stages of the Obama plan..

however, on the 'withdrawal of forces' and the 'surrender' thing you have mentioned ... we have a kind of differance of opinion...see, there is no question of withdrawal because.. this administration has promised to set up the strength of the troops..also, there is no question of surrendering when the US is plannning to intensify its engagement with Afghanistan....that too, as i have mentioned in my article, in an inclusive manner.....

on Apr 10, 2009

Moreanuj, my pleasure good article.

however, on the 'withdrawal of forces' and the 'surrender' thing you have mentioned ... we have a kind of differance of opinion...see, there is no question of withdrawal because.. this administration has promised to set up the strength of the troops..also, there is no question of surrendering when the US is plannning to intensify its engagement with Afghanistan....that too, as i have mentioned in my article, in an inclusive manner.....

Let me elaborate a bit more on why I said what I said. It is true that the current administration is sending more troops to Afghanistan; however, with the additional troops, the president is placing more restrictions on their actions. The presidents anti-war base, as well as some Democrats in congress, are all ready up in arms about the decision. There will be immense pressure to remove these troops prior to the next presidential election or risk losing his base support. This will be compounded exponentially if the body count rises (military or civilian) or if there presence is deemed ineffective. This president has no taste for war, and can't get any support to deal with the real problem which lays in Pakistan.

The presidents recent trip to Europe was also telling. The Europeans are tiring of this adventure (they also have no taste for war after 60+ years of relative peace). He was only able to secure a small amount of support troops, no combat troops. Many  NATO troops are far from the fighting and only a few countries are doing the heavy lifting. The president is aggressively seeking a way to negotiate with the "moderate" Taliban (if such a thing exists). Many groups opposed to the US in the middle-east are finding new found strength in this administrations perceived weakness. It's just a matter of waiting it out.

Of course I was speaking metaphorically when I used the term surrender, be assured it will be termed something else, but in the end it will be the same. Some agreement will be drafted that will allow the Taliban to return if they promise to behave. In their culture, which is centuries old, they are behaving so they are being truthful. NATO troops will leave, Afghanistan, even the troops and police being trained now, will slip back into its old self, and the US will not have the stomach to return. No formal declaration for surrender, but the same results. 

on Apr 15, 2009

hi again.. nitro..

i am sure the president does not intend to stay for too long in afghanistan...i hope it does not turn into another vietnam for the americanc... as i said in my article... the sooner the nato leave the better it is...afghanistan, as we all know, has  been a difficult nation...no outsider can stay there for long...history has lot of examples...but before it leaves, the nato should complete the work of building the nation...

yes europe will not yeild any troop support...but there are other significant ways in which they can contribute...

i believe that the present administration has a better vision..

more focus is required in pakistan...especially after the swat incident....and the growing power of taliban there....

on Apr 16, 2009

more focus is required in pakistan...especially after the swat incident....and the growing power of taliban there....

The news about Swat is troubling. IMO the Government of Pakistan has given up part of its sovereignty.  Will this keep the Taliban satisfied? For how long? How many other groups will want a piece of the country now? The US is unable to do anything, it has been neutered by Europe. Even if it could it would probably would make matters worse. I hope I am wrong but I think bad times lay ahead for the region. Once a nation lets go it's difficult to get back. You said you hope it's not another Vietnam for the US. That would be an embarrassment. For Pakistan I hope it's not a civil war. That would be a tragedy.