US and allies face tough questions while recommitting forces to the war effort in Afghanistan, says Zubair A Dar
A cursory look at the map showing the toll on United Kingdom’s
troops in Afghanistan clearly shows the challenge that the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) forces face in this war ravaged country. The maximum number of casualties have occurred in southern provinces around Helmand and Kandahar – at least 223 deaths since the war began in 2001.
Facing elections in the coming year, the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party is finding it hard to reassure the United Kingdom’s public in general and the families of the troops in particular about the effectiveness of the war in stopping the threat from arriving in London. In a speech at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, Brown stressed that Afghan campaign was "prosecuted out of necessity" as three-quarters of the terrorist activities that happen in Britain arose from these areas.
And this is one of the many factors that US President Barack Obama will have in mind while spelling out his policy on Afghanistan, the tone for which was set recently, when he announced his intention to "finish the job".
Though the process is likely to begin by sending more troops to Afghanistan to control Taliban resurgence before the final withdrawal begins, negotiation with the Taliban has not been entirely ruled out. Though the stated mission is to “dismantle and degrade their (al-Qaeda's and Taliban's) capabilities and destroy their networks”, there are strong indications that the Taliban can be a part of the final settlement that would see security responsibilities transferred to the Afghans.
The likely troop reinforcement comes weeks after the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, in a report warned that "failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible". McChrystal had sought 40,000 more troops for implementing his new strategy in Afghanistan that concentrated on protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents or controlling the territory.
It was following this report that the US President began a series of consultations – nine in all – with his war council that included Vice President Joe Biden, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, secretary of defense Robert Michael Gates, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan ambassador Richard Holbrooke and US Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal besides management and budget director Peter Orszag whose consultation is seen as a result of the budgetary concerns raised in recent weeks. While US war expenditure is likely to increase by as much as $30 billion to $40 billion per year, the McChrystal plan had warned that "inadequate resources will likely result in failure”.
Obama’s new strategy will have to negotiate many domestic and international pressures. In the recent months, the American and British public has viewed the Afghanistan war as “not winnable”. Voices within the US Democrats, who fear Obama’s association with a growingly unpopular war in an election year, oppose any major escalation of involvement in Afghanistan – their belief that the conflict is no longer central to US security.
A cursory look at the map showing the toll on United Kingdom’s
troops in Afghanistan clearly shows the challenge that the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) forces face in this war ravaged country. The maximum number of casualties have occurred in southern provinces around Helmand and Kandahar – at least 223 deaths since the war began in 2001.Facing elections in the coming year, the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party is finding it hard to reassure the United Kingdom’s public in general and the families of the troops in particular about the effectiveness of the war in stopping the threat from arriving in London. In a speech at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, Brown stressed that Afghan campaign was "prosecuted out of necessity" as three-quarters of the terrorist activities that happen in Britain arose from these areas.
And this is one of the many factors that US President Barack Obama will have in mind while spelling out his policy on Afghanistan, the tone for which was set recently, when he announced his intention to "finish the job".
Though the process is likely to begin by sending more troops to Afghanistan to control Taliban resurgence before the final withdrawal begins, negotiation with the Taliban has not been entirely ruled out. Though the stated mission is to “dismantle and degrade their (al-Qaeda's and Taliban's) capabilities and destroy their networks”, there are strong indications that the Taliban can be a part of the final settlement that would see security responsibilities transferred to the Afghans.
The likely troop reinforcement comes weeks after the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, in a report warned that "failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible". McChrystal had sought 40,000 more troops for implementing his new strategy in Afghanistan that concentrated on protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents or controlling the territory.
It was following this report that the US President began a series of consultations – nine in all – with his war council that included Vice President Joe Biden, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, secretary of defense Robert Michael Gates, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan ambassador Richard Holbrooke and US Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal besides management and budget director Peter Orszag whose consultation is seen as a result of the budgetary concerns raised in recent weeks. While US war expenditure is likely to increase by as much as $30 billion to $40 billion per year, the McChrystal plan had warned that "inadequate resources will likely result in failure”.
Obama’s new strategy will have to negotiate many domestic and international pressures. In the recent months, the American and British public has viewed the Afghanistan war as “not winnable”. Voices within the US Democrats, who fear Obama’s association with a growingly unpopular war in an election year, oppose any major escalation of involvement in Afghanistan – their belief that the conflict is no longer central to US security.
No comments:
Post a Comment