An important factor

The decision to send in more American troops to Afghanistan was a long time coming. In his recent speech US President Barack Obama walked a fine line between the two positions advocated by his advisers: some wanted to pursue what has come to be called the counter-insurgency approach while others advocated a counter-terrorism strategy.

The first is aimed at using considerable amount of force to overcome the insurgency while undertaking intensive development of the liberated terrain. The second is aimed at concentrating firepower on the strongholds from where the terrorists are launching their attacks. Areas in Pakistan are not to be spared since US intelligence had concluded that the insurgents had made these not only their sanctuaries but also their training grounds.

The military did not get all it wanted but it got more than President Obama’s most ardent supporters would have wanted him to provide. The long process of deliberation that resulted in the decision to send 30,000 additional soldiers — a process the president’s detractors called ‘dithering’ — resulted in giving the commanders additional troops so that they could concentrate their effort in the south and southeast, in the provinces that border Pakistan.

President Obama told his audience that it was neither his intention to go over the distraction of the war in Iraq from America’s mission in Afghanistan nor to repeat the ‘wrenching debate over the Iraq war’. Instead he wished to detail why America needed to recommit itself to winning the struggle against extremism. He wanted to speak to the nation ‘about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion’.

He acknowledged that mistakes had been made under the watch of his predecessor although he did not refer to them as mistakes or directly referred to the policies pursued by President George W. Bush. ‘But while we’ve achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, Al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe haven there.’ Pakistan, in other words, had become an important factor in the Afghan equation.

President Obama told the American nation — and the world — that while he planned to send an additional 30,000 troops ‘this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war.’ Nato forces were likely to increase to 40,000. The additional American troops would be moved quickly but it would take six to eight months to complete the deployment. By late July or early August 2010, the full American force would be present on the ground. This would be the peak of the fighting season in the country. Most of the American troops would be concentrated in the provinces bordering Pakistan.

What purpose was to be served by this buildup in the size of the American contingent? ‘Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.’ The new mission will last at its peak for a period of 18 months after which ‘our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan’.

President Obama recognised that nothing would succeed in Afghanistan unless Pakistan was helped to stabilise its economy and equipped to handle insurgency. ‘... [W]e will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan. We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the region. In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.’

This time around, President Obama promised an enduring relationship with Pakistan that would go beyond contacts with the military and the intelligence services. He had already signed into law the Kerry-Lugar bill that promised Pakistan $1.5bn of economic assistance a year spread over a period of at least five — possibly 10 — years.

‘In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people will be unleashed.’

The response in Pakistan to the country’s inclusion in the refined Afghan strategy was mixed. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani worried about the movement of the Afghan insurgents into Balochistan as the pressure on Afghanistan’s province of Helmand increased. He wanted some assurance that the American troops will block these escape routes. There is no doubt that as the new strategy unfolds, Pakistan will be in the middle of things to come.