Afghanistan: Obama’s Afghan predicament
by
MUQTEDAR KHAN*

Gen. McChrystal, who is widely rumored to have captured Saddam Hussein and killed al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, is a former back-ops commander. He is now in Afghanistan and reports that the 100,000 plus Western troops cannot deal with the rising power of the Taliban and risk being defeated.

The situation in Afghanistan is indeed very serious. There is no doubt about it. The Taliban has in the last year nearly quadrupled their numbers, going from 7,000 to over 25,000, according to US intelligence. The Taliban fighters have also become more aggressive and effective in their ability to engage Western forces. While their numbers have increased four times, their military activities have increased 100 times. British sources reveal that British forces now have to fight the Taliban seven times a day.

Additionally, the project of nation building lies in tatters. The rigged elections have undermined the credibility of US-sponsored democracy, and developmental projects have been very slow in implementation. The deaths of civilians from US attacks have increased and so has anti-Americanism, giving a boost to the Taliban.

 The enemy, to make matters worse, is proving to be very resolute, cunning, resourceful and brazen. In the past few weeks, they have attacked the Pakistani army’s national headquarters, they have blown up the Indian mission in Kabul, attacked an Italian patrol, attacked a NATO convoy in Kabul and attacked a US military base in Kamdesh, causing heavy casualties and eventual closure of the base. They have killed hundreds of soldiers and civilians on both sides of the border. The year 2009 has become the deadliest for the US and its allies.

To compound the problem, the US now faces dwindling support for the war at home (only 40 percent of Americans support it), and the appetite for war is declining in NATO allies, especially in Britain and Italy. Italian leader Berlusconi has promised that Italian and Western troops will soon be out of Afghanistan. All of this means that President Obama will have to fight an increasingly unpopular war -- which he has repeatedly labeled as necessary -- with less public and allied support and against a progressively stronger enemy.

The decision that President Obama faces is very difficult. His options are few and none of them is promising. If he expands the war by sending another 40,000 US troops into Afghanistan, the chances of alienating Afghans and exacerbating anti-Americanism across the region -- something that he has struggled against since becoming president -- will increase. Nothing acts more effectively as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and the Taliban than the sight of US soldiers. It is also not clear that this will be the final surge.

If he decides to shrink the war -- withdraw from Afghanistan and only focus on al-Qaeda in Pakistan as suggested by Vice President Biden -- Afghanistan will surely be lost to the Taliban. Once again it will become a safe haven for extremism, anti-Americanism and al-Qaeda. We will be back to October 2001.

If he opts for a middle way -- no withdrawal, and no major surge, but some escalation (there is a word for this strategy in the dictionary -- half measures) -- it will send a signal to the US military that the president does not value the advice of their commanders and it will convince the Taliban that the US is rapidly losing the stomach for a prolonged battle and will only inspire them to escalate their efforts.

What the president needs to do is to think outside the box. He needs to understand that the Taliban is a regional force that seeks regional goals and may never become a global force. America is not and has never been the Taliban’s target. Al-Qaeda, on the other hand, is a global agency that targets the US and exists solely to undermine what it sees as US imperial designs in the Muslim world.

My suggestion is that for now he make a truce with the Taliban and focus on al-Qaeda.

If he can defeat them in Pakistan, reform healthcare at home, reduce unemployment, bring peace to the Middle East, save the environment, survive Rush Limbaugh and retain the White House in 2012, then perhaps he can try to achieve what Alexander the Great, the British Empire, the Soviet Empire and the American Empire under Bush failed to achieve -- subdue the Afghans.