Time For Obama to Listen to Saner Voices

The same old question continues to haunt Obama asfinancial troubles; assertion of countries like China,
was before him when he assumed office in JanuaryIndia and Brazil, and resurgence of Russia; and
should he continue the course charted by hisreluctance, even denial, of NATO countries to make
predecessor, which has caused great damage to hisfurther commitment to the Afghanistan
country and drawing it further into the sinkhole; ormisadventure, besides growing demand of winding up
deliver on the promise of hope and change he madethe war by the people in the West.
not only to his own people but the whole world?When Mikhail Gorbachev told Americans they will
That time he missed the opportunity granted by anever win in Afghanistan, his wise bit was turned
broad national mandate and the universal consensusdown by many out of overconfidence on US might.
against the Bush policies. One hopes he won't missBut, this is exactly what has lately transpired. This is
the chance this time when the people are demandingwhy Obama rejected the four military options he
to do something about the national and worldwas presented recently. All of these involved sending
ailments.more troops to Afghanistan, and none of which
He was aware then and is convinced now that theattached any strings relating to withdrawal, or reform
policies of Bush administration have failed, ratherin the Karzai administration. They were: One, send
worked against their declared objectives protectingbetween 10,000 and 15,000 extra troops to augment
the US in particular and the world in general fromthe 68,000 US military on the ground now.
terrorists attacks, help the depressed people getVice-president Joe Biden favours this option. Two,
freedom, promotion of the values of the free worldsend 20,000 more troops. Three, send 30,000 more
and attainment of a fair degree of world peace.troops. Four, send 40,000 more troops, as General
These have also put further farther those undeclaredMcChrystal wants.
goals, which according to many were the real aimsYet another aspect of troops surge debate is
free access and control of the energy assets in MEcost-benefit proportions. The internal government
and Central Asia, security of Israel and worldestimates place the cost of McChrystal option at $40
recognition of its sole super power status in abillion to $54 billion a year. Even if fewer troops are
unipolar world.sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula
The declared yet unattained objectives are evenused by the White House, of about $1 million per
more relevant today and must be perused with asoldier per year, appears almost constant.
renewed vigour and commitment. But it is not justSo even if President Obama opts for a lower troop
vigour and commitment that are needed, and it's thecommitment, Afghanistan's new costs could wash
policies, not strategies that must be changed.out the projected $26 billion expected to be saved in
Unilateralism must be replaced with multilateralism,2010 from withdrawing troops from Iraq. And the
coercion with persuasion, isolation of 'rogue states'overall military budget could rise to as much as $734
with engagement, and militarism with diplomatic andbillion, or 10 percent more than the peak of $667
political initiatives. After all, one cannot bring a bigbillion under the Bush administration. Such an
change in output without a significant change in theescalation in military spending would be a politically
input. The so-called wars against terrorism havevolatile issue for Mr. Obama at a time when the
provided a respite from attacks to the West, butgovernment budget deficit is soaring, the economy is
the relief is superficial and temporary as theseweak and he is trying to pass a costly health care
misadventures have brought a wholesale death andplan.
destruction to Muslim populations, thereby turningA recent survey by The Gallup Poll shows only 35%
large sections of otherwise moderate Muslims intoof Americans now support Gen. Stanley McChrystal's
extremists.request for more troops, while 44% want to reduce
As far the undeclared objectives, the situation is nottroop strength in Afghanistan. In other words, the
different as Israel is more insecure today, the dreampeople of this country are beginning to bail on the
of controlling energy centres in ME and Central Asiamission. Seven out of 10 Britons, the people of the
now seems more difficult to realise, the people ofstaunchest allied state, back the call for a phased
Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan have suffered morewithdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as a landmark
from the wars than they would have otherwise andreport by Oxfam this week exposes the real human
the US has landed in a world with many poles.cost of the war.
The real question is: has Obama enough courage toAccording to the US Defence Department, as of Nov
defy the hawks and the so-called Jewish lobby? If he13, 2009, at least 839 members of the US military
does this, he risks losing his job. But on the otherhad died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a
hand, sticking to failed policies is sure to bring him toresult of the US invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.
a total failure. The fruits of policy shift are many: ifOf those, the military reports 648 were killed by
he succeeds, he is a hero; if he is dethroned in thehostile action. But remember above mentioned figures
process, he has a chance of a Charles de Gaulle-styleare from the Defence Department and do not include
return, or, at the least, he will be remembered in USthe death toll among US civilians, Europeans and
history as a man who sacrificed his position to upholdAfghan troops and officials. As far the Afghan
a moral cause.civilians are concerned, various casualty counts
There are many subtle and obvious changes that cansuggest that between 12,000 and 32,000 civilians
help Obama in effecting a policy change. Amonghave been killed either directly or indirectly due to the
these is a growing awakening to the military defeatfighting since 2001.
in Afghanistan and futility of Gulf wars; growing