Is Obama’s Afghanistan troop strategy viable?

Is Obama’s Afghanistan troop strategy viable?

On Tuesday evening, US President Barack Obama will finally announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan. After months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce an escalation of US presence across the Durand Line by more than 30,000 troops. This represents a 50 per cent increase over the 68,000 troops already fighting in Afghanistan.

Speaking at the US Military Academy at West Point, Obama will emphasise that the goal of the troop surge is to stabilise Afghanistan and help build and train the country’s military and police forces.

In the US, and especially within the Democratic party, there are many critics of Obama’s decision. They say that the war has become too costly – it costs US$ 1 million, per soldier, per year – that military casualties are increasing, and that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is too marred by accusations of corruption to prove a viable ally against the Taliban.

A recent poll by USA Today/Gallup shows that 57 per cent of Democrats favour beginning a withdrawal from Afghanistan, while 72 per cent of Republicans back the troop increase.

What do you think of Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan? Do you think a bolstered US presence will help win the war against terrorism? How will this decision impact the political and security situation in Pakistan?

The following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

 

Comments Guide:
Dawn.com encourages its readers to share their views on our forums. We try to accommodate all users' comments but this is not always possible due to space and other constraints. Please our read our comments guidelines below for more information:

1. Please be aware that the views of our bloggers and commenters do not necessarily reflect Dawn.com's policies.

2. Though comments appear to have been published immediately after posting, they are actually forwarded to a moderation queue before publication.

3. Dawn reserves the right to remove or edit comments that are posted on this blog.

4. Language that is offensive to any race, religion, ethnicity, gender or nationality is not permitted.

5. Avoid posting comments in ALL CAPS. Commenters are also encouraged to avoid text contractions like 'u r.'

6. Do not cross-post comments across multiple blog entries.

7. Any comments posted to a blog entry should be relevant to the topic or discussion.

8. Do not spam the comment section.

171 Responses to “Is Obama’s Afghanistan troop strategy viable?”

  1. suleman says:

    Let Obama fulfill his wish of sending more troops to Afghanistan. I think he has completely forgotten the fate of Russians. They were next door neighbors so quickly crossed the Amu river back home. The Obama’s army is thousands of miles away & like the British they want their last soldier to be killed there. If this is their desire, let destiny do its work.

  2. robert says:

    I am amazed that people are getting so pessimistic about everything. Even the peace efforts or sincere endeavors bring suspicion in their minds. Why everyone just think religion as a criteria for peace or battle. It’s Afghanistan Iraq Bosnia or Vietnam every place is same, humans live there so we should try to make efforts to create atmosphere to assist each other to do for the prosperity of miserable people and nations instead of using guns to control hungry illiteracy and ignorance among those people. Why we only regard people as animals or savage if they are from other culture religion or area in this earth? Probably we are using bombs to kill nothing. Or wasting resources in developing state of the art weapons to kill donkeys in the mountains. Don’t you think it’s a great way to waste tax payer’s money and ideal way to increase poverty and financial problems of people of every part of the world? It’s a fact that wars bring misery to every nation involved in it. We should find positive ways then using guns and killing soldiers or innocent people of any nation. They all are humans. Please do not let humans to fight with each others just to satisfy the political gains of some and to keep jobs in security services. Please avoid wars before it brings grave miseries to everyone.

  3. Mushtaq, Los Angeles says:

    Obama’s Afghan policy is no different than that from his predecessor. New policy will have far more serious consequences for Pakistan and US tax payers and spell innocent blood on all sides.
    Why all so-called strangest fail to recognize this fact that Afghanistan is a tribal society and not a country. Yes, it has defined borders but within these borders every tribe has its own power structure based upon their way of living, religion sect and above all who has biggest gun and sacks full of drug money. What has made it lot worst is killing of innocent people. In whose name these people are being killed? Ask any child in Afghanistan and Pakistan border area who has not been affected and someone in their family killed. These people will never forget what has been dished to them and will take their revenge.

    The answer lies in education and people contact. Force will make things only more difficult and complicated. The real losers’ in this war are US tax payers and innocent people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

  4. Yawar Shah says:

    President Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan should be welcomed.
    This is recognition of the fact that Iraq war was immoral and billions were wasted.
    The real threat emanates from Afghanistan and Pakistan is the front-line state confronting this global war. Resources are now being poured into Afghanistan with a ratio of 30 to 1, compared to Pakistan. That has to change, with massive financial and military assistance to Pakistan if this war is to be won, just as assistance to Pakistan during the Cold War brought about the defeat of the Red Army in Afghanistan and collapse of the “evil” Soviet empire.

    Yawar Shah

  5. Keti Zilgish says:

    Militants cannot be fought successfully anywhere unless Pakistan agrees to allow US to cross the Durand Line.

  6. Raman NYC says:

    What the Pakistani friends don’t realize that this war is not about one nation going after another for land, but useless Religious reasons that are driving them crazy and each time they are loosing the territory India gave them to live in peace. That didn’t happen and now we find out that they are not capable of building a modern nation on just religion-no one can. Religion and democracy don’t mix. We all know that.

    Pakistani are smart people and they should realize that by now an get on with building a strong homeland that can survive all odds, and leave religious ego behind. Religious people cannot eat any religion. This was the flow then 60 years ago, now even a bigger flow.

  7. Nicky says:

    Obama hasn’t broadcast his AF-PAK strategy yet. Pak is so nervous.

  8. Nitin says:

    It is high time that establishment in Pakistan should try to serve their people rather than politicians and army. The government and media of Pakistan portray a picture of insecurity from India and use Afghanistan as backup. They want to fool the people and rule Afghanistan from back-hand. Taliban is a creation of Pakistan with US help. The main motive was to wrest power from Northern Alliance and have a puppet government in Afghanistan. Little did they realize that one day the same Taliban are going to haunt them. I think the world community should help build Afghanistan and Pakistanis are capable enough of building themselves. They just need to remove the veils and face the challenges rather than depending on aids from US/Saudis.

  9. Ashfaq says:

    It will be just a band aid solution. Not change the eventual result, i.e. US and NATO will exit from Afghanistan and Taliban will rule the country again. This so simple and verify able from the achievements of the last 8 years, what dent they have done to Taliban, except killing the innocent civilians and few Taliban’s perhaps. Overall the west is a loser where ever, they have tried to venture with sheer power. Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan.

    For that matter Israels future is bleak as well, they would be dissolved themselves into failed nation, this will be done by time itself, example South Africa. This kind of tactics have never in the human history has worked in the long term

  10. Ullas says:

    Before sending more troops Obama must ask two questions:

    (1) Who is financing the Taliban?
    (2) Who is providing them with arms?

    And the answer to both the questions will be the same.

    Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are so-called “allies” of the US. Therefore it’s a joke to say that the US will fight the Taliban but will do nothing against SA and Pak. America suffers from these kinds of delusions since the cold-war. That’s why you will see them talking of human rights to China but not to Saudi Arabia (where human rights are worth less than 1 cent to a dollar).

    On the battlefields of Kurukshetra, the Lord tells Arjuna “It’s in your destiny to fight, the only questions are against whom and for what”

    The US must first answer these questions.

  11. Fersos says:

    Seriously nobody can be sure whether troop surge can prove successful. What is needed is a change in strategy to neutralize the Taliban. For starters going after the collaborators who are providing refuge, funds, logistics and support – may prove fruitful. Amnesty for Taliban who lay down arms is a good idea too. Getting troops from Muslim countries in place of NATO forces would have been positive, but there are no volunteers.
    Situation may get a lot worse before it gets better.

  12. Baloch says:

    The Baloch welcome any US military surge in Afghanistan and will do everything to help Afghan and US forces in the region.

  13. Sapan Kapoor says:

    We in India believe Obama has made the right decision of sending more troops in Afghanistan as he intends to finish the ‘Job’.

    Moreover it should have been done long ago. Since they were wasting their time and resources unnecessarily in Iraq, the US ignored the real problem of Afghanistan and Pakistan for so many years. Because of that Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups have been able to find ‘Safe Heavens’ in Pakistan which is unacceptable. As some US military analyst have rightly pointed out that the problem of Afghanistan can not be solved without solving the problem of Pakistan. The kind of blunt language Obama has used in the letter sent to President Zardari clearly shows the frustration the US administration has with the government and the Pakistan Army. I was very surprised to see that no major newspaper or news channel in Pakistan reported or analyzed this blunt message or clear warning from the US to Pakistan.

    The US is losing its patience with Pakistan and that is something you people should take care of. Pakistan’s double standards on jihadi groups has finally incurred US wrath, with President Barack Obama writing to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari recently that the US would no longer tolerate Islamabad’s reluctance to act against Lashkar-e-Taiba and other jihadi groups.

    According to a report in The Washington Post, Obama also warned Pakistan that its use of insurgent groups for policy goals “cannot continue” and called for closer collaboration against all extremist groups. He named five such groups — Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Tehrik-e-Taliban. “Using vague diplomatic language, he said that ambiguity in Pakistan’s relationship with any of them could no longer be ignored,” the report said.
    The clock is ticking.

  14. Faisal says:

    @Hasan Bin Hamza

    OIC is another big joke, it’s a rudderless ship that serves no purpose, except for making a few defiant but meaningless speeches whenever Israel plays with Arabs.

    I see no real solution to the situation, unless Taliban show some maturity and flexibility.

    I think NATO is ready to leave, even if they have to cede to Taliban as long as the Taliban is ready to part ways with Al-Qaeda.

  15. Muhamma Haris Abbasi says:

    It is not a good decision by Obama to send more troops in Afghanistan because this decision directly effect Pakistan. It will drive the Taliban in to Pakistan and made more problems for Pakistan.

  16. Hussain says:

    I think troops surge in Afghanistan will not make any remarkable difference whatsoever. It will result in more monetary pressure on already downtrodden US economy, without achieving any thing concrete on ground. Already the coalition army has been limited to Kabul only. So in my opinion US soldiers cannot do any thing in Afghanistan except limited ops and monitoring, already afghan army is taking lot of brunt due to their western allies. By now any brainless would have understood that WAR is not the answer to this crisis. As regards to Pakistan if at all this troops surge achieves any thing, it would be allowing Taliban to run to Pakistan Tribal areas. So in turn creating security hazards in Pakistan. So here is the solution from my side:-

    1. US should provide sufficient aid to Pakistan in consultation with international douners for sealing border with Afghanistan.

    2. US should start thinking of wrapping up from Afghanistan. Because seriously there ain’t any thing left for US.

    3. An Impartial election, electing a truly peoples government

    4. Exit from Afghanistan as soon as possible.

    Conclusion. To me increasing troops strengthen Afghanistan is like writing your own death warrant for US

  17. Nitin says:

    Does any one dare to ask why militancy is there in this region? One simple answer: militancy has been a state tool all around the globe and in this region developed by U.S. and managed by Pakistan.

    Now U.S. want to close the chapter but Pakistan don’t. So the simplest thinking says first Pakistan should clean itself.

    Then only deployment of any Muslim force in Afghanistan is worth. Moreover this lot of political problem then military problem.

    Obama cannot go against American interest even if he is peace loving, genuine person. He has to choose a path & only history will tell whether he was right or wrong.

  18. Hasan Bin Hamza says:

    @Faisal

    There are 57 countries that are members of the OIC. Of the 57 Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, SA and Egypt have large standing armies. Others will have smaller forces. As far as Muslim countries are concerned, it would be best to have a collective approach rather than taking one country at a time and thinking which groups in Afghanistan will be opposed to which. At least two of them Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have a hand in creating these monsters and should shoulder the responsibility of controlling them. It is in the interest of countries bordering Afghanistan that their borders remain peaceful. This has been suggested as only ‘one’ option that ‘may’ be useful, naturally having kept in mind the pitfalls associated with this approach. Please feel free to share your suggestions that again ‘may’ potentially be useful.

  19. Usman Khan says:

    This is awesome world has noticed a major shift in US policy toward Muslims, but the surging of US troops in Afghanistan will worsen the situation than that is presently their. Obama needs to go deeper into the heart of this war by keeping the importance of ‘regional compact’, and also the pre-requisite of the Muslim Military for it will be helpful to eradicate terrorism through the presence of Muslim community forces. Realistically approach will be fruitful because above 90% are Muslims. Therefore Islamic military presence can handle the situation more culturally and sophisticatedly by the help of US and other World Powers than that of the NATO forces. Eventually, it will also encourage the neighboring countries specially Pakistan – which has largely effected by the spill over of extremists element-to cooperate in the context of ‘Regional Compact’ if US really wants to get out of this mess.

  20. Faisal says:

    @Hasan Bin Hamza

    “If NATO forces are replaced with those from the Muslim countries”

    Which Muslim country you have in mind?

    1) Saudi Arabia, remember the Gulf war, their military is a joke.
    2) Iran, you think Taliban will tolerate being “controlled” by a Shia military. This will initiate another “Jihad.”
    3) Pakistan, you think Indian influenced Northern Alliance will tolerate its presence.
    4) Turkey, not sure they are ready for big deployment in a useless place as Afghanistan.

    Do you really think any Muslim country is in any position for a major deployment in Afghanistan? This says a lot about the state of so called Muslim Umma.

  21. Hasan Bin Hamza says:

    The aura of Obama being different from his predecessor is gradually but surely being chipped away. The myth that he would bring a new era of US policy making stands exposed as the only thing he has thought of as a strategy to end a disastrous war is more of the same. More war to end war! The addition of these 30 thousand soldiers, by the supposedly peace loving president, has now resulted in doubling of troop numbers in Afghanistan from when he took over.

    Terrorism in that area is a reality and no one can or should deny that. However, to defeat it the most important instigating factor must be removed and that is the presence of ‘external’ forces. If NATO forces are replaced with those from the Muslim countries that may serve as one useful mechanism to begin controlling hydra of terrorism that is rearing its head in the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The increase in troop numbers will most probably have very serious consequences in Pakistan. It will drive the Taliban in to Pakistan and potentially destabilize the country. But alas, the time to do otherwise is lost and now we will have to live with the consequences.

Dawn.com on Facebook


dawn.com on Facebook

Advertisement