US shouldn’t get bogged down in Afghanistan

By S.P.SETH

Even as Pakistan grapples with its own Taliban insurgency (the young 28-year old Mehsud, the new leader, is expected to be even more blood-thirsty than his recently killed predecessor), much of the world is awaiting the final outcome in Afghanistan.

The elections, of course, are important but they are not going to really solve Afghanistan’s intractable problems. By holding elections, the international force there is sending a message to the Taliban.

Which is that, despite the Taliban’s efforts to disrupt and destroy, the United States and its allies are determined to stay the course and make Afghanistan a functioning state under a democratic system—however imperfect.

The Taliban, on the other hand, are doing their utmost to create anarchy. They are not interested, at the present time, to capture power. Their objective is to create fear and lawlessness and thus destroy people’s confidence in the regime and the evolving new system.

Without a sense of security in the country, the Afghan government, propped up by external forces, lacks credibility. And elections lack sufficient legitimacy going by the reports of electoral fraud, and very low turnout, particularly in the Pashtun-populated southern and eastern region of the country.

The Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. President Karzai is one of them. But Karzai clan is steeped deep in corruption and unholy political alliances with unsavory warlords.

Afghanistan, at times, looks like a lost cause.

President Barack Obama has made Afghanistan his project. He has described Afghanistan as a “war of necessity” rather than a “war of choice”.

As he has explained, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

It is true that Taliban and al-Qaeda are a serious terrorist threat. But are they such a serious threat requiring the United States to commit large scale armed operations over an extended period of time lasting ten and even more years of military entanglement in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

If that is the case, will the United States and its allies have the patience and the popular support to dig in for that long? Even if they do, what are their plans for Afghanistan’s future, if they do last that long?

It is not just the stamina and staying power of the US-led international force that is a question mark. It is also whether they can afford (in economic terms) a long war in far away region, in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s Depression.

And is it worth bleeding white and, in the process, losing the United States’ position as the world’s primary superpower?

China has already emerged as a challenger in the midst of Bush’s war on terror. And to be bogged down now in Afghanistan (with Iraq still in intensive care) will seriously damage the United States’ global status.

What it means is that terrorism need not become the primary focus of US strategy. It should be dealt with in a phased manner, without getting bogged down in Afghanistan through a preponderant military presence in that country, especially when it is probably part of the problem rather its solution.