President Obama’s Af-Pak Surge

President Obama has revealed his much awaited renewed Af-Pak strategy; which can now be called the Af-Pak surge. The challenges confronting President Obama were formidable. He was expected to come up a plan that would please all stakeholders nurturing opposing and conflicting demands. While the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan were expecting the President to send reinforcements, the American people were not favorably inclined to put more soldiers in harms way. Moreover, the expectations of many stakeholders are difficult to discern. For example, there is still confusion about what Afghans wants: a troop surge or withdrawal of foreign forces. Given the challenges it was obvious that President Obama’s plan would not satisfy everyone in full measure.
Nevertheless, the criticality of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan warranted that the plan be premised on non-normative considerations. Simply stated, the plan should have been based on factual and objective determination rather than evaluative prescriptions. Though the troop surge is based on General McChrystal’s report, the ensuing plan appears to have ignored some vital considerations and reflects some contradictions.

President Obama in his West Point Speech asserted that the goal in Afghanistan was “narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qaida and its extremist allies.” A contention re-asserted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates at today’s Testimony before the Senate’s Armed Forces Committee. Is defeating al-Qaeda a narrow objective? The socio-economic roots of al-Qaeda’s reinforcements have been emphasized since 9/11 and are widely accepted. Can defeating al-Qaeda be neatly separated from challenges of socio-economic development? Defeating al-Qaeda is in fact a momentous task which goes much beyond military operations.
President Obama concluded his speech with the typical assertion of America’s global responsibility. The President said:
“And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the moral source of America’s authority.”
The “narrow” goal of defeating al-Qaeda was broadened to shoulder moral responsibilities across the globe in just a matter of few paragraphs!
As a show of what the U.S. had achieved in Afghanistan after eight years of involvement, President Obama stated, “High-ranking al-Qaida and Taliban leaders have been killed as a result of the American efforts.” But the fact also remains that these ranks have been reinforced almost instantly. Al-Qaeda as a force has not been depleted; for vacant post there are immediate successors. Can death of al-Qaeda leaders be taken as a measure of its exhaustion?
In reference to the Af-Pak region, President Obama said that “it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.” This sounded more like words of President Bush. Anyways, the al-Qaeda may be concentrated in the Af-Pak region but is not confined to it. The assumption that future terror plots are being planned in the region is naïve. The recent arrests of David Coleman Headley and Tahawar Hussein Rana in Chicago demonstrate the global spread of terror planning and execution centers.
The final assumption which seems problematic is that the U.S. course of action in fighting the al Qaeda in Afghanistan was clouded by concerns for the war in Iraq. The diversion of attention to Iraq does not have a causal relationship with the resurgence of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A host of factors were responsible for the re-grouping of al-Qaeda and thus the reduction of U.S. commitments in Iraq will not imply automatic success in the Af-Pak region.
Some of the challenges facing President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy can be addressed only minimally. Two such primary challenges are Pakistan and the international community’s commitment to the task.
The nuclear potential of Pakistan was asserted by President Obama in his West Point Speech and by Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen at the Senate’s Armed Committee hearing today. According to President Obama the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan. The level of nuclear and political stability or instability in Pakistan is difficult ascertain, thereby reducing the credibility of any probability analysis with regard to Pakistan’s involvement in the mission. Just when President Zardari appeared to be allowing the Prime Minister greater control over the country’s nuclear arsenal, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff shocked secular elements in the country by saying that “no one can separate Islam and Pakistan”. According to general Kiyani the goal was to turn the country into a true Islamic state. Pakistan’s political and military leaders are masters of spin and this can complicate President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy.
Secretary Clinton is expected to meet NATO leaders soon for courting international assistance in making President Obama’s Af-Pak strategy a success. Germany has already refused to send reinforcements and the 500 additional British soldiers don’t sound impressive either. Most NATO members are expected to wait till the January conference before committing more troops but any significant increase in troop levels of NATO countries does not seem possible. British P.M. Gordon Brown’s comments following President Obama’s speech yesterday shows signs of underlying disagreements. According to P.M. Brown there was “no question” of British troops being withdrawn from Afghanistan until the Afghans could take over security control themselves. President Obama’s withdrawal timeline (a necessity for selling the surge decision to the American people) thus appears unconvincing.
Most of the ambiguities and inconsistencies discussed above emerge from the fact that President Obama was addressing multiple audiences through this one speech. As the opening segment highlights different aspects of the speech were meant to please diverse target audiences while best serving American interests. Hopefully, behind the closed doors the Obama Administration is mindful of these challenges. The actual strategy needs to be implemented with due regard to ground realities and not merely as a PR exercise.

AFTER-THOUGHT:  The President’s speech can be read in over 25 languages including Arabic, Urdu, Dari and Pashto. An impressive and laudable attempt by the administration to reach out to audience that matter.