Obama's War

Sad as it is, one of the most profound observations so far about Obama’s short tenure as President came from a Tweet by Iowa's 75-year old senior Senator, Chuck Grassley. While Obama was announcing a new ‘surge’ of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, Grassley tweeted:

Now it bcomes Obama War Not Bush war any longer

To be sure, Obama’s move wasn’t exactly a surprise. He made a significant speech during the general election outlining his vision for a more vigorous war in Afghanistan, and he suggested the possibility of attacking Pakistan during a primary debate (he's continued and intensified controversial strikes by Predator drones in the border regions, and his focus on the internal affairs of Pakistan suggests further involvement is possible). Despite the fact that he campaigned on the issue, Sen. Grassley is right: these actions have transferred ownership of the Afghan war from Bush to Obama.

So what are we to make of this "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan"? Let's take a look at the speech Obama made, where he announced the "surge":

1. One of the most significant parts of the plan was an appeal to our European allies, NATO members in particular, to contribute, saying that it was not only an "American problem." However, NATO committed nearly no new troops after Obama's trip to Europe earlier this month.
2. Obama, in what is arguably a vast improvement over Bush's execution of military expeditions, defined an explicit goal: "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan , and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
3. Obama repeatedly emphasized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked in this conflict, though I'm afraid that conflicts with the historical reality of their relationship. According to Dr. Amin Tarzi, who spoke at UNC earlier this month, the Afghani and Pakistani governments do not recognize each other. This complex reality is just one crippling legacy of British colonialism in the region (more on that in a later post).
4. Obama takes a page from the liberal book of international politics in emphasizing the need for economic security and education. Dr. Tarzi said this will only work if the people of the region don't know the US is backing these efforts. As former CIA officer Michael Scheuer said in his piece, "Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die," "absence makes the Afghan heart grow stronger," implying that the US's footprint should be as light as possible when possible.
   

Given these objectives, what are the facts on the ground that we can anticipate?

First, McClatchy Newspapers reported last month that multiple Islamic militant groups reached a unity agreement in which they agreed to put aside their differences and focus on repelling the new troop surge.

Second, the President Zardari just signed a peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban, committing the Pakistani government to enforcing shari'a in the Swat region. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this is already emboldening the militias and giving them new ground on which to train.

These two events are particularly frightening, given the video below, which shows how hostile and heavily armed people in the Northwestern region of Pakistan are:





There are certainly more things to consider about "AfPak," and I intend to write a fairly regular post about the developments in the region, in addition to presenting some of the religious, social, and geopolitical history so that we can better understand what is actually going on there.