Not Vietnam, not yet

by Tariq Fatemi

THERE was no intention to write on Afghanistan so soon after the last column but it appears that an impression has been created that the Obama administration has reached the conclusion that it may have no other option but to withdraw US troops from that country.
Moreover, President Barack Obama recently asserted that Afghanistan was not Vietnam, which shows his apprehension that Afghanistan is reviving the nightmarish memories of Vietnam that are seared in the American psyche. Hence the need to revisit the issue.Obama is increasingly giving the impression of a beleaguered leader, confronted by powerful lobbies determined to sabotage his well-intentioned proposals, whether they include domestic health reforms or his Middle East initiative. But it is Afghanistan that could cripple his administration and tar him for all times.
The situation is not getting better, with a Taliban resurgence that has surprised US commanders. August proved to be the bloodiest month for US forces, which further reduced popular support for the war. Gen Stanley McChrystal, Nato commander in Afghanistan, has already warned that without additional troops, the Afghan war is “likely to result in failure”, but Obama’s fellow liberals are accusing him of damaging their electoral prospects, while Republicans are urging him not to succumb to misplaced public sentiments.
In the meanwhile, another harsh reality is that a discredited and controversial Hamid Karzai continues as president. The US will have to deal with an Afghan leader who has little credibility at home and even less legitimacy abroad. Former US President Jimmy Carter has accused Karzai of “stealing the elections”, while rejecting the suggestion that the US should send more troops to Afghanistan. Will mounting setbacks in Afghanistan and growing opposition within the US convince Obama to cut his losses and withdraw his forces from a land popularly known as the ‘graveyard of empires’? Here it should be recalled that although the immediate reason for the invasion of Afghanistan was 9/11, the US objective was far more ambitious.
In fact, many US analysts lamented the US decision to walk away from Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal. The country’s strategic location makes it a critical player on more than one count. It is seen as the most convenient gateway to the energy-rich resources of Central Asia and the Caspian Sea. Since 9/11, the US presence in the region has strengthened — a fact that has not gone down well with either Moscow or Beijing. Another major development has been Nato’s dramatic eastward expansion, much to the surprise of observers who had expected the alliance to fall apart in the wake of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Its operations thousands of miles away from its originally mandated theatre of command have added to deep misgivings in the region.
Nevertheless, any decision to withdraw from Afghanistan without achieving an outright victory — a remote possibility — or even a contrived exit will not be simple. Within the US, Obama is likely to be savaged by the rightwing conservatives and evangelists, who have always had reservations about him, while America’s standing would be further damaged. Moreover, a US withdrawal from Afghanistan would leave it with little justification for its growing presence in Central Asia where it has been establishing military bases and other facilities.
Nato’s ambition to be a global player, operating far beyond its originally envisaged sphere of operations, would be destroyed for the foreseeable future and leave the organisation bereft of any purpose. This would represent a major victory for China and Russia that are seeking to extend their influence deeper in their neighbourhood. This may explain why the prima donnas of the foreign policy establishment like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, are expressing alarm at the rapidly eroding support for the Afghan war. They advise patience, while admitting that if the European allies were to leave the US alone in Afghanistan, it would “probably spell the end of the alliance”. Brzezinski has expressed support for the Anglo-German initiative for a new international conference on Afghanistan seeking a military strategy supported by the developmental approach to help prolong the European presence in Afghanistan as then Europe would be “less likely to leave us in the lurch”.
Britain’s special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, Sir Sherard Cowper–Coles, also warned that while the situation in Afghanistan was deeply worrying, abandonment of that country was not an option because “walking away would destroy everything that has been achieved”. Admitting, however, that higher casualties would have a profound impact on public opinion in the West, he suggests that the solution lies in devolving political power back to the tribal elders who have traditionally held sway in Afghanistan and channelling funds for developmental projects through them.
Given the limited options before Obama, it is not unlikely that there will be renewed efforts to make the Afghan war more ‘efficient’, ‘cost-effective’ and ‘sustainable’, in a way that does not hurt the US leader at home when the next presidential election campaign begins. This would need an Iraqlike situation in Afghanistan, whereby major elements from within the Taliban are co-opted, enhancing the government’s legitimacy and credibility, while shifting most of the fighting to a trained and expanded Afghan force. The US would rely more on air power and counterinsurgency operations in Pakistan which will be called upon to accept a bigger share of the burden. Will all this make the US mission more viable? Only time will tell, though the signs are not encouraging. The ghosts of Vietnam are not likely to be exorcised soon.
Courtesy: Dawn