RSS
Home
AF-PAK: What's going on?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Lately, there have been calls by some anti-war entities to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan, citing the belief that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have "left Afghanistan and moved into Pakistan." While not technically incorrect, the "moving out of Afghanistan" is merely a ten mile journey across the border. It certainly isn't an unknown route to the fighters; they have used this route hundreds of times to escape U.S. and coalition forces since the beginning of the war. The area occupied by these guerillas is called Waziristan, and they have long controlled access to the area with aging weapons salvaged from the war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
Pakistani forces have been reluctant to do anything about the situation in Waziristan, and have given excuses ranging from "[al-Qaeda and the Taliban] are too well-entrenched in a remote area" to the historical tensions with India. This so-called remote area is less than 200 miles from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, and less than 100 miles from Peshawar, the capital of the North-West Frontier Province[1] and the administrative centre for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. The guerillas, emboldened by decades of running free in the area, have recently taken to attacking Pakistani military and law enforcement targets.
Tensions with Iran over a recent bombing that killed 42 people have pulled the Pakistani leadership in a yet another direction, spreading the already politically and militarily embroiled government even thinner.
The President stated, back in February, Afghanistan had "not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires." Despite his multiple statements that Afghanistan is the right war, and that it is the most urgent and dire situation, requiring an unflinching resolve and dedication to victory, Obama is now reconsidering his position and delaying a decision on sending more troops.
There are arguments to be made for a surge in and for a withdrawal from Afghanistan. Without the troops, Afghanistan is almost certainly doomed to fall back to the Taliban, or worse, to al-Qaeda. With the troops, Afghanistan is probably still doomed, it will simply be delayed until some point in the future. The Obama administration is probably now beginning to see what the Bush administration came to realize before leaving office: that there is no easy road out of either Afghanistan or Iraq. Leaving either one without a permanent U.S. presence, and without proper educational institutions and job opportunities will inevitably lead to more war and probably some type of ethnic or religious "cleansing" of the area, once U.S. forces are gone. Allowing Afghanistan to fall now would certainly be another major blow to the President's already bruised ego from not being able to acquire the Olympics for 2016, but maintaining troops or increasing troop levels is also not working in his favor politically, since his supporters want all U.S. troops brought home immediately.
The Pakistan situation has to be compounding the decision, making a good case for sending more troops to keep Afghanistan from falling and to be ready to assist Pakistan when the government fails. There is no doubt that, left unassisted, the Pakistani government will fall to the terrorists. Al-Qaeda is not a disorganized gang or merely a bunch of thugs, these are people used to fighting against forces much larger and better armed than their own. The Taliban brings a wealth of knowledge and experience in overthrowing and governing a hostile state to the table. If the two were to officially join forces in Pakistan, this could quite possibly make for a hostile, inevitable turn to the next world war or possibly even a nuclear war.
Crazy? Not hardly. The Israelis certainly wouldn't allow a nuclear state so close to Iran to founder, leaving all the nuclear power and weapons to pillagers, much less to terrorists who have the destruction of Israel etched in stone at the top of their to-do list. The Indians, likewise, would not be inclined to be neighbors with a hostile, nuclear country. While their disagreement over Kashmir leaves them disgruntled with Pakistan, to replace the known, stable, manageable enemy with an unknown, radical, unstable one would be unacceptable.
However, the Iranians would not be opposed to Pakistan's downfall. What's in it for them? For starters, Pakistan is often seen as a U.S. supporter in the region, and as such does not curry much favor from the Iranians. Also, the unimpeded access to untended nucear weapons, should the state fall, cannot be ignored. The Iranians would gleefully attempt to pilfer as much as they could while voicing shock and dismay at the fall of an Islamic state. However, Pakistan is 75% Sunni which is not held in high regard by the 90% Shia population of Iran.
These are the things the President has to consider. The media is defending his delay while the former administration is attacking him for it, but all are wondering when the President will make a decision. It's not an easy job. There is never a decision that will be held as correct by all points of view, but that's why they are called "tough choices." There is much to be said for weighing all the options and trying to carefully make the best decision, but sometimes a decision simply has to be made and the path must be followed with all due haste. That is what the President has to learn. After all, he was elected to be "the decider."
Related Articles:
Add a Comment
