A feasible withdrawal?
US President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw forces in numbers larger than endorsed by his military commanders poses several questions.
Has the president done so only to fulfil a commitment for withdrawal pledged earlier? Has Obama, in preparation of a second electoral term, attempted to shift focus on issues of far more importance domestically such as the lagging economy? Is the mood in the White House, post-Osama bin Laden, mistakenly over optimistic?
Only recently did an admission from US Secretary Defence Robert Gates lay to rest any doubts when he confirmed that Washington was engaged in talks with the Taleban. Is the US, by hoping to engage the insurgents politically, conveying a message through the announced reduction of troops that it does not intend to stay — thus hoping for a more productive dialogue.
Apparently, Obama’s military advisors are not happy with what they perceive as a detrimental and drastic cut down in forces and one that may impact the laboriously achieved gains. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has called it “more aggressive” than advised and riskier. Similar sentiments have been expressed by General David Petraeus, the US Commander in Afghanistan and nominated to head the CIA.
Likewise, though Afghan President Hamid Karzai has welcomed the decision reiterating confidence in the Afghan security forces, many of his officials have contrary opinions. The general sentiment is that a sizeable and hasty withdrawal at this juncture will be disastrous in the face of the existing (in)capability of the national forces. They feel that the foreign forces must stay beyond the 2013 deadline — the date for the complete exit of US forces — set by Obama and help in training the Afghan forces to boost operational capability and assume responsibility.
Fears of the country regressing into another phase of instability reminiscent of the post-Soviet withdrawal loom large. Following American footsteps, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also announced the withdrawal of 4,000 soldiers as part of a phased exit plan on the lines of the US exit timetable.
The insurgent reaction to the announcement is as expected. Denouncing the move as a mere ‘symbolic’ one, the Taleban in a media statement, vowed to continue fighting till the ouster of all the foreign forces from the country. It also accused Washington of giving false hopes to the American people and making baseless claims about victory.
Freshly victorious after Bin Laden, Obama has probably understood the need to address the Afghan war differently. The mammoth cost of deployment that amounts to $2 billion a week is a mocking reminder in the current domestic economic scenario. On top of it growing disquiet over the feasibility of a war that has incurred a heavy cost in terms of soldiers, lives has added further pressure.
It is hoped that a political solution involving all insurgent factions is thought of sooner rather than later ends the current imbroglio.
US President Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw forces in numbers larger than endorsed by his military commanders poses several questions.
Has the president done so only to fulfil a commitment for withdrawal pledged earlier? Has Obama, in preparation of a second electoral term, attempted to shift focus on issues of far more importance domestically such as the lagging economy? Is the mood in the White House, post-Osama bin Laden, mistakenly over optimistic?
Only recently did an admission from US Secretary Defence Robert Gates lay to rest any doubts when he confirmed that Washington was engaged in talks with the Taleban. Is the US, by hoping to engage the insurgents politically, conveying a message through the announced reduction of troops that it does not intend to stay — thus hoping for a more productive dialogue.
Apparently, Obama’s military advisors are not happy with what they perceive as a detrimental and drastic cut down in forces and one that may impact the laboriously achieved gains. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has called it “more aggressive” than advised and riskier. Similar sentiments have been expressed by General David Petraeus, the US Commander in Afghanistan and nominated to head the CIA.
Likewise, though Afghan President Hamid Karzai has welcomed the decision reiterating confidence in the Afghan security forces, many of his officials have contrary opinions. The general sentiment is that a sizeable and hasty withdrawal at this juncture will be disastrous in the face of the existing (in)capability of the national forces. They feel that the foreign forces must stay beyond the 2013 deadline — the date for the complete exit of US forces — set by Obama and help in training the Afghan forces to boost operational capability and assume responsibility.
Fears of the country regressing into another phase of instability reminiscent of the post-Soviet withdrawal loom large. Following American footsteps, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also announced the withdrawal of 4,000 soldiers as part of a phased exit plan on the lines of the US exit timetable.
The insurgent reaction to the announcement is as expected. Denouncing the move as a mere ‘symbolic’ one, the Taleban in a media statement, vowed to continue fighting till the ouster of all the foreign forces from the country. It also accused Washington of giving false hopes to the American people and making baseless claims about victory.
Freshly victorious after Bin Laden, Obama has probably understood the need to address the Afghan war differently. The mammoth cost of deployment that amounts to $2 billion a week is a mocking reminder in the current domestic economic scenario. On top of it growing disquiet over the feasibility of a war that has incurred a heavy cost in terms of soldiers, lives has added further pressure.
It is hoped that a political solution involving all insurgent factions is thought of sooner rather than later ends the current imbroglio.
Ban Ki-moon’s second inning
Ban Ki-moon’s apolitical nature has won him a second-term at the world body. The United Nations secretary-general, however, is apt at real-politicks.
That was squarely evident as he openly came out to support the Arab Spring in the Middle East and Africa. But the fact that he hasn’t been an impediment on the path of major powers’ obsession to lead from the front, thus entailing his office and organisation a mere watchdog status, says it all. Retaining the coveted post and that too unanimously for another term reflects the astuteness and diligence with which the South Korean diplomat has handled the world agenda spanning wars and peace to climate change and recessionary economics.
The soft-spoken emissary, nonetheless, should be credited for strengthening the role and the visibility of the United Nations. His personal intervention in humanitarian crises from Chile to Pakistan and from Honshu to Haiti is, indeed, laudable. Moreover, he has been tactfully dealing with the controversial issue of human rights without making it a personalised agenda.
Aso, Ban’s shrewdness in keeping China and Russia proactively involved and restraining them from exercising their veto power, especially in the case of Libya, is broadly eulogised.
The secretary-general will be poised to assume a leadership role as the resolution for Palestinian statehood is brought before the house. This is the time when a lot of secretarial articulation will be required while dealing with a fundamental issue pertaining the basic parameters behind the creation of a supra-governmental organisation. Whether he follows in the footprints of Dag Hammarskjold and U Thant to exhibit genuine leadership remains to be seen. Though his low-key profile has often been criticised, Ban has been quite vocal on environment and institutional initiatives.
The secretary-general still has to ensure that the lingering debate of reforms at the UN, especially the expansion of the Security Council and the permanent members gets to a logical conclusion. Incidentally, his desktop is heaped with peacemaking issues ranging from the Middle East, to the nuclearised Korean Peninsula. How he manages to make a difference is awaited.
Ban Ki-moon’s apolitical nature has won him a second-term at the world body. The United Nations secretary-general, however, is apt at real-politicks.
That was squarely evident as he openly came out to support the Arab Spring in the Middle East and Africa. But the fact that he hasn’t been an impediment on the path of major powers’ obsession to lead from the front, thus entailing his office and organisation a mere watchdog status, says it all. Retaining the coveted post and that too unanimously for another term reflects the astuteness and diligence with which the South Korean diplomat has handled the world agenda spanning wars and peace to climate change and recessionary economics.
The soft-spoken emissary, nonetheless, should be credited for strengthening the role and the visibility of the United Nations. His personal intervention in humanitarian crises from Chile to Pakistan and from Honshu to Haiti is, indeed, laudable. Moreover, he has been tactfully dealing with the controversial issue of human rights without making it a personalised agenda.
Aso, Ban’s shrewdness in keeping China and Russia proactively involved and restraining them from exercising their veto power, especially in the case of Libya, is broadly eulogised.
The secretary-general will be poised to assume a leadership role as the resolution for Palestinian statehood is brought before the house. This is the time when a lot of secretarial articulation will be required while dealing with a fundamental issue pertaining the basic parameters behind the creation of a supra-governmental organisation. Whether he follows in the footprints of Dag Hammarskjold and U Thant to exhibit genuine leadership remains to be seen. Though his low-key profile has often been criticised, Ban has been quite vocal on environment and institutional initiatives.
The secretary-general still has to ensure that the lingering debate of reforms at the UN, especially the expansion of the Security Council and the permanent members gets to a logical conclusion. Incidentally, his desktop is heaped with peacemaking issues ranging from the Middle East, to the nuclearised Korean Peninsula. How he manages to make a difference is awaited.
0 comments:
Post a Comment