Tweet
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/edito...ooks-dodgy-288
US commitment to Kabul looks dodgy
The superpower is in a tearing hurry to leave Afghanistan. The American presidential election season has well and truly arrived. The Afghan war has cost the United States over $400 billion, and it is nowhere near winning. But the Obama administration still has to put a positive spin on things as it seeks to hastily withdraw US troops. All of this was on ample display when President Barack Obama made a rapid-quick unannounced visit to Kabul in the small hours of Wednesday and left well before daybreak.
He and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement between their two countries that is to be for 10 years. Perhaps more significant, he addressed his own fellow citizens in America from Afghanistan. He intended to catch prime-time television audiences, and he did. Clearly the midnight visit to Afghanistan had more to do with adjusting for time difference so that the maximum number of US television viewers may be caught on the first anniversary night of the slaying of Osama bin Laden.
Mr Obama told viewers back home he was getting out after a job well done. For Afghans the message was that the US was not going to dump them as it had done in 1989 after Soviet troops had departed — that Afghanistan could count on the US as a friend. Both messages are dodgy.
The night Mr Obama was in Kabul, the Pentagon released a report which says the Taliban are still capable of replacing battlefield losses and mounting attacks inside Afghanistan. What does this say for the “mission accomplished” message? As for the strategic partnership deal, military and financial support for Afghanistan is to continue. In fact, this is in line with the Bonn-II agreement of December 2011 when Nato participants had agreed to continue support for a decade, starting 2014. However, Washington has not said anything about the quantum of support. This must be cleared by Congress every year. So is the financial backing more symbolic than real? Compare this with the largesse Pakistan receives from Washington year after year.
In contrast with the US pact, the strategic partnership agreement that India signed with Afghanistan in October 2011 makes it clear it would “stand by” Afghanistan after Western troops go home. This is because India’s vital interests are involved. If the Taliban return to Kabul, and with the Chinese establishing themselves militarily in parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, terrorists could once again play havoc in Kashmir. Strategic engagement with Central Asia is another factor to consider.
US commitment to Kabul looks dodgy
- May 4, 2012
The superpower is in a tearing hurry to leave Afghanistan. The American presidential election season has well and truly arrived. The Afghan war has cost the United States over $400 billion, and it is nowhere near winning. But the Obama administration still has to put a positive spin on things as it seeks to hastily withdraw US troops. All of this was on ample display when President Barack Obama made a rapid-quick unannounced visit to Kabul in the small hours of Wednesday and left well before daybreak.
He and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement between their two countries that is to be for 10 years. Perhaps more significant, he addressed his own fellow citizens in America from Afghanistan. He intended to catch prime-time television audiences, and he did. Clearly the midnight visit to Afghanistan had more to do with adjusting for time difference so that the maximum number of US television viewers may be caught on the first anniversary night of the slaying of Osama bin Laden.
Mr Obama told viewers back home he was getting out after a job well done. For Afghans the message was that the US was not going to dump them as it had done in 1989 after Soviet troops had departed — that Afghanistan could count on the US as a friend. Both messages are dodgy.
The night Mr Obama was in Kabul, the Pentagon released a report which says the Taliban are still capable of replacing battlefield losses and mounting attacks inside Afghanistan. What does this say for the “mission accomplished” message? As for the strategic partnership deal, military and financial support for Afghanistan is to continue. In fact, this is in line with the Bonn-II agreement of December 2011 when Nato participants had agreed to continue support for a decade, starting 2014. However, Washington has not said anything about the quantum of support. This must be cleared by Congress every year. So is the financial backing more symbolic than real? Compare this with the largesse Pakistan receives from Washington year after year.
In contrast with the US pact, the strategic partnership agreement that India signed with Afghanistan in October 2011 makes it clear it would “stand by” Afghanistan after Western troops go home. This is because India’s vital interests are involved. If the Taliban return to Kabul, and with the Chinese establishing themselves militarily in parts of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, terrorists could once again play havoc in Kashmir. Strategic engagement with Central Asia is another factor to consider.