Obama's War of "Hope"

On the eve of going to receive his much talked about Nobel Peace prize in Oslo, President Obama decides to send more young American men and women into war. Regardless of the circumstances that lead him to that decision, nothing can be more ironic.

The war in Afghanistan was always candidate Obama's war. He always proclaimed it as the war worth fighting with full force as Osama Bin Ladin was the prime target. He has always said the excursion into Iraq took the "eye off the ball" with devastating results. This rhetoric in part won him the election. Seven years later with a promise of hope, he still thinks the war in Afghanistan is the one we should be escalating. While it seemed he deliberated on this option with a heavy heart, the decision he ultimately arrived at seemed predictable. He heeded to his generals. To make his case to the public he resurrected the ghosts of 9/11 sounding too close to comfort like his predecessor.

What Obama is offering in this plan compared to the surge in Iraq (the success of which is overrated) is that he is bringing more nations to the table by emphasizing how important this conflict is to the security of not just America but the planet. Yet again there are no Islamic countries who have pledged any troops. Even the dictators America supports in Egypt and Saudi Arabia had nothing to offer. Russia, China and India stand at a distance, watching and waiting, and the contributions from the western nations are minuscule. He has also promised to start withdrawing from Afghanistan by 2011, calling it an exit strategy. That sounds improbable and absurd knowing the situation on the ground and America's past history. Once America invades a nation it does not leave gently. Even though President Obama has said the troops are there only to help, no one in the region believes him. There are still thousands of troops stationed in Japan, Korea, Germany and elsewhere, much to the displeasure of the locals, even though the wars have long ended. There must be no illusions of America's ambitions of policing the world with supremacy. Lately this is beginning to prove detrimental to its own economic and political standing in the world, but that has not deterred anyone. President after president there seems to be a reluctance to alter that course. As a result when ever there is a conflict anywhere in the world, lo and behold, America is implicitly expected to intervene and it does, sometimes with catastrophic results.

In a response to President Obama's West Point speech, Christian Amanpour, the CNN diva reporter, made a statement in support of his decision. She stated that the Afghans know the difference between the Russians, British, Taliban and the Americans. They know that the Americans are there to help them rebuild and bring hope to their decimated nation. While this may be what is being intended and perceived, when one sees a convoy of Hummers driving by, and bombs falling of the sky and the sound of gun fire becoming the norm, all perception is lost. They know they are in a war zone and that is all the distinction there is to be made. And for most Afghans, unlike most Americans oceans away, a war zone is all they have ever known.

While Obama made bold promises that he is going to hold the corrupt, despicable leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan accountable, by ending the practice of "handing out blank checks", everyone knows that corruption is a systemic cultural problem that cannot be banished by policy. If bold statements could eradicate corruption, the world would be a better place. The corruption that went on under the Bush administration in the name of war, in the US and abroad, is yet to be dealt with. Now Obama hopes to deal with corruption within the Afghan government that came to power as a result of corruption. You could maybe contain the Taliban, but curtailing corruption would be almost impossible, especially when the very government in charge of doing it is made up of two faced nefarious characters.

What is clear and has been expressed by many experts who live in the region openly, is that this war cannot be won militarily. It is a Pashtoon problem, not a Taliban or Al Qaeda problem. Unless we start approaching it as a geopolitical issue there is no positive outcome that will come out of this conflict. The Pashtoon are fiercely independent and now have become hardened as a result of being marginalized. We are made to imagine them as a backward, crazy, criminalized band of religious zealots. While there is an element of that, most are radicalized because there is a war going on and war is something they know how to engage in. They have been invaded by a foreign force and they have to push back. It is their religious duty. That is all they have known for forty years. Not all Pashtoon are Taliban, but most Afghan Taliban are Pashtoon.

If the mission is to contain Al Qaeda, the war we are escalating is misguided and completely out of proportion. If the goal is to stabilize Afghanistan and keep the Taliban out, this can be done only with the help of a neutral force, with serious partnerships with Islamic and regional powers and by negotiating with the moderate elders. Sending more troops sends a signal that we are not interested in negotiating. We just want to wipe them out, out of their own nation. If the secondary threat is the destabilization of Pakistan and its nuclear infrastructure, we are making the situation worse by escalating the war across the border. Even though the porous border between the two nations gives a sense that the problem is linked, the situation in Pakistan today is a result of successive failed governments supported by misguided American policy. The spillage and the establishment of terrorist groups within Pakistan's borders is a byproduct of a failed state with many power centers.There is no clear solution that can be brought about to this problem militarily. It can only be subdued for a short time. Pakistan's enemy is India, and now they are being told to fight their friends and they detest that. It is an open fact that Pakistan would like to see the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan. Pakistan has supported and given room to terrorist groups to fight their proxy war as a national policy. Without addressing these issues which span from Kashmir to the north west frontier, with a hard line, America will get no where with Pakistan. All they will get is deception.

If the hope is to rebuild Afghanistan into a nation, which is what seems to be the underlying plan and solution, then we need to listen to the Shura, the elder councils. As they are the ones who may hold the ultimate key to peace. This is what the celebrated author and social worker Greg Mortenson who has spent a lifetime working and living in this region has also proposed. Unfortunately Obama did not take them into account while making this decision. He only sought advice from some of the same people who in part are responsible for this mess eight years in the making.

So while Obama pitched this troop increase as a war of "hope", the so called "just war", the war that must be fought to make the planet a better place, the only "hope" that he should be concerned about is the "hope" that he would get re-elected, if and when this is over. The fact on the ground is that the American forces are battered and the morale is low. The cost of running a war at the expense of American blood and treasure seems misplaced, especially in the current climate. Some soldiers are being deployed for the sixth time in as many years. A broad section of Afghans and the Pakistanis detest the American presence and see it as the reason for the violence that is bleeding their land. The remote controlled CIA drone attacks are highly unpopular for the collateral damage that they cause in their aftermath. And there have been more drone attacks under Obama's administration than under Bush's. There is a high level of desertion within the Afghan National Army and police and fresh recruitment is a huge problem due to the corruption. The war is deeply unpopular across the board.

Even though this is not a war he started, with this current move President Obama has taken full ownership of it. And as a "war time president" he sure is acting like all those who have come before him. Showing that he can be tough and decisive when the chips are down. What is a fact, is that except George Bush, all who came before him did not get re-elected to office as a result of their experiments with war. If there is anyone who needs hope at this moment in time, it is the Commander-in-Chief. As there is nothing more intoxicating than to stand in front of a banner that screams "Mission Accomplished". It is what it is.