When John McCain questioned Robert Gates and Mike Mullen about the date of troop withdrawal given out by Obama as being Jul 11 he was told that the administration would review the situation in Dec 10 and then take a final call. That’s rather understandable but in that case why give out this date of withdrawal at all? And that’s the first flaw with his strategy. Once you have given these dates Taliban may play a waiting game thereby giving a false picture to the decision making authorities, NATO. As things stand today, they are nowhere close to winning that war. And then to expect them to turn things around to an extent to enable them to start pulling out in just eighteen months is rather naive. Actually, they don’t even have eighteen months to achieve that. It’s more like seven or eight months because the entire lot of 30,000 troops which Obama announced will only reach Afghanistan by May 10 and the decision will be taken in Dec 10. To expect things to go from what they are right now wherein they need more troops to thinking of pulling out in this short a period is crazy, even for laypersons like you and me. Even if you go by what Gen McChrystal had said wherein he demanded 40,000 more troops and that too without any time line of eighteen months to begin withdrawal it goes to show that either Obama’s generals are not exactly in sync with him or worse, Obama himself is not in sync with his generals in Afghanistan.

The second noticeable flaw which is very obvious is the decision to concentrate on ‘key population centers’. Here’s an excerpt from Obama’s recent speech.

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers.”

Now, population centers are important for sure. But that’s not the key in Af-Pak. US may well be able to force Taliban out of these towns and cities but that would suit Taliban just fine. They would just melt into mountains or worse, cross over the Durand Line into Pakistan and wait for Americans to leave in a few months time. And that’s the key in Af-Pak conflict. Only when this open border is plugged can Americans hope to achieve any discernible success in Af-Pak.

Consider this, the militancy in Kashmir has reduced drastically largely because the Indian army has physically plugged all routes of infiltration, ie Indo-Pak border. Once the ingress is prevented the ones inside can be taken care of and this is exactly what is happening in Kashmir. Slowly and slowly the terrorists are running out of weapons, men and material to the extent that today they are on the run and are a very scared lot. Point to be noted here is that this did not happen in just a few months time. It has taken five to six years for India to force it’s hand in Kashmir on the issue of infiltration which has led to drastic reduction in levels of militancy in the state. Agreed that India only has to concentrate on 740 kms as against 2600 kms of Durand line which Americans have to deal with. To be fair, it is not exactly 2600 kms. It’s more like 1300 kms where the Pashtun dominated Taliban are concentrated in. Take a look at this map.

The entire Durand line is not the problem. Only the places where Pashtuns are located has to be taken care of. Americans need to take over that line first and then think of pushing inwards into Afghanistan. They can begin their thrust from either edge of this line or preferably both. Are these extra troops enough for this purpose? Frankly, I don’t think so. Whatever be the case Americans need to judge their actual requirement after taking over this line. Of course they have technology like satellite surveillance to assist them but to expect only technology to prevent this movement is naive. Technology can only boost the efficiency of physical presence of troops. It cannot take over that duty.

We keep talking of Af Pak strategy but it actually should be Af-Pak strategy. There is a difference between the two. America needs to dehyphenate the two not just in words but physically too. And to achieve this they have to physically separate the two Talibans, the one operating in Pakistan and the one in Afghanistan. Only once this happens can the war be won. There are no two ways about it. I know this is not an easy task. Securing 1300 kms physically is not but I’m not exactly talking of a fencing like US Mexico border but a more fluid arrangement wherein the area is kept  under surveillance and troops are kept in smaller pockets at selected locations along the border. These troops should be so placed that they can be launched in helicopters and be effective anywhere on this line within 15-20 minutes and be able to stop not just ingress but egress as well. There will be many infrastructural problems like roads, electricity etc but if they can get over this it will be half the battle won.

The third major flaw is the raising of Afghan army and police forces to a decent level wherein they can take over responsibilities from Americans. Agreed that Americans are working towards having 200,000 to 300,000 worth of Afghan security forces but in my opinion they are digressing from their main job which is fighting the Taliban. America needs to outsource the training entirely to other countries like India, Russia and China for that matter. These countries may not be willing to be a part of NATO’s fighting formations but they can surely take on the training of Afghans. Together, they can muster many more than just 5000 trainers, who currently are employed for this purpose, and who (the new lot) in turn can train many more than what are being trained now. 5000 may be a small number as compared to the rest but every bit counts. Doesn’t it?

Fourthly, I wish to state that 100,000 odd American troops plus a handful from other countries may not be enough to defeat Taliban. Pertinent to mention that strength of Russian 40th Army which had occupied Afghanistan way back in eighties was also just about 100,000 at any one given time. If Taliban could defeat 100,000 Russians they may well present a huge challenge to Americans, which they actually are. I know the situation is different and technological superiority which the Americans now have was not available to Russians then but still a point worth taking note of. Also, like I said earlier,  Obama’s own generals want more troops to successfully fight Taliban. So I do have a point there. How many more? That’s an intangible which I really don’t wish to get into but suffice to say that India has more than 600,000 troops in Kashmir to fight these terrorists who were much less in number than the number of Taliban in Afghanistan today. Even if you take into account all the technological superiority which the Americans have I really don’t think Indians are ten times(roughly) inferior than Americans. So if you guys want you can draw your own deductions here.

Actually, all this calculation goes for a somersault if the strategy which NATO is using is not to finish Taliban in Afghanistan but push them into Pakistan instead. And if you really think about it, it’s not exactly a stupid idea either. Let the Pakis keep fighting these people. Let them keep doing the dirty job. After all they are being paid for it rather handsomely. Having said this, I realize Obama will not approve of it as it is ethically not correct (What’s that?).

Lastly, it will be worthwhile to mention that Americans can’t leave this area till such time Pakistan too is able to reign in terrorists in their country. Americans may be able to pull out some troops but still they will have to keep a sizeable number, depending on the success or lack of one thereof, of the Pakistan’s operations against Taliban. And to expect Pakis to deliver in the next eighteen months when they have not in the last seven years of this ‘war on terror’ is naive, to say the very least.

Obama too on his part has to move beyond critics like Thomas L Friedman who have denounced the move to send extra troops to Afghanistan (Incidentally Friedman has given the same article Budget Concerns to two Indian newspapers, The Indian Express and Tribune. I wonder why? Like I said- ethics, what’s that?) In this article the main point of Friedman’s argument is that this war is draining America physically and financially. He says a weak America would be in no position to deal with not just the current economic crisis at home but would also not be able to effectively contribute to the world in a manner that it has so far. Well, what I would say is that critics like Mr Friedman have got it all wrong. The options are not between having a weak or a strong Amercia. The options here are having an America and not having one. If they have any doubts about it, it is at their own peril.

Related Post

Sign of America's failure

Kashmir is not that important

Back off Mr Prime Minister

Do not talk with Pakis

Why is a strong and stable Pakistan good for India?

Pakistan's deal with terrorists is justified

Taliban vows to fight alongside Pak army

 If you like this post subscribe to my RSS feed. See how?

Register for Newsletter | Email this post | Download this post

Posted on December 4th, 2009 India calling, Track the world • Tags: Af-Pak, Pashtun, surge, Taliban, terrorists, troops, war. • RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback