Topic Obama's Military Strategy in Afghanistan

8/9/2019 Topic Obama's Military Strategy in Afghanistan

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/topic-obamas-military-strategy-in-afghanistan 1/8

Obama's Military Strategy in Afghanistan

The United State has two primary national concerns in this conflict. At first that

Afghanistan may not become a heaven terrorism and extremism against the United States, and

secondly the lack of order and instability in Afghanistan not destabilize its neighbors,

particularly Pakistan. Americans has a clear statement that they invaded Afghanistan to destroy

the al Qaeda safe heaven there, which use in the 9-11 attacks. But now they said that al Qaeda

central is no longer based in Afghanistan, Bin laden and his core operation are all by accounts

now based across the border. They suspected that Pakistan¶s Federally Administered Tribal

Areas (FATA) is now the origin of al Qaeda, where the central command of al Qaeda located.

Therefore they also needed army troops to threaten the terrorists lurked in Pakistan. The Taliban

movement in Afghanistan have clear and deep relations with al Qaeda and also compassionate to

it, but evidences are present that show al Qaeda is also present in Afghanistan today, which could

intimidate the U.S homeland in any direct way.

If American army is removed from the Afghanistan then there are chances that Taliban

and al Qaeda revolt becomes strong enough to collapse the Afghan government. And if this

government is replaced with a neo-Taliban system of government, or Taliban were able to fortify

real political control over some of the major bordering fraction of Afghan area then may be al

Qaeda re-establish and starts threatening the U.S and whole world again. Therefore U.S has to

assure the presence of its military enforcement in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, because they

are weak states whose failure could provide heavens for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

(Davidson 2003)

To have a check and balance on Pakistan with the help of political and military pressure

is necessary because Pakistan is far richer and better connected to the outside world than



Afghanistan and provides an ideal state for al Qaeda incase of its failure. Pakistan is much more

perilous, because it expected to be a safer place for the al Qaeda, and the risk of nuclear weapons

falling into al Qaeda¶s hands would be grave indeed. U.S has to stay in Afghanistan and control

its military movements, because U.S is now so unpopular in Pakistan, that U.S cannot deploy

major ground forces there to help Pakistan¶s government against fighting terrorism and

extremism. (Biddle 2009)

The policies of U.S towards Afghanistan and Middle East are not changed to such extent

as was expected. As historian Mark Weber, director of the Institute for Historical Review in

California says, ³Barack Obama has promised µchange¶. But his track shows that he¶s not likely

to make major changes in U.S foreign policy.´(Obama 2008) After the long period of trickery,

disastrous wars and economic failure of the Bush presidency, Americans wants to have a change

in the foreign and economic policies. Therefore disappointed and worrisome Americans were

ready to embrace the promising messages of young leader having a magnetic personality. But the

appointments made by the Obama in new administration and his public statements of recent

months shows that Obama is implausible to make major changes in the U.S policies towards

Afghanistan and Middle East. Obama promise to increase U.S military forces in Afghanistan

shows that he supports the Bush¶s policies. Obama also accepts an American role as a global

policeman. Obama ambitions are as irresponsible as President Bush¶s distressing foray of Iraq.

Obama continue those policies in the Middle East that are similar to those of President Clinton

and Bush.

U.S foreign policy consists of the strategies and principles that guide the national

government¶s relations with other countries and groups in the world. Although the details of

America foreign policy may change from one administration to another, objectives of United



States foreign policy remains constant. The principal target of American foreign policy is to

preserve the security of the United States. The constitution lists award the president specific

powers in foreign matters. The most important is the power to be the commander in chief of the

nation¶s military forces. As commander in chief, president may send troops, ships, planes, or

even use nuclear weapons any time any where in the world without Congress approval. In

addition to power as commander in chief, Article II, Section 2, gives the president certain

diplomatic powers, and also gives the president power to make treaties. Therefore the president

has the final responsibility for making American foreign policy and protecting national security.

For nearly half a century, U.S foreign policy was defined by clash with the Soviet Union.

Whereas since the end of the cold war, the United States has redefined it¶s foreign and defense

policies. However after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World trade centre and

pentagon buildings produced a fundamental change in United States foreign policy and public

opinion. This is especially severe for Muslim countries and peoples. (Biddle 2009)

United States foreign policy towards Middle East is generally renowned as, ³U.S oil

policy´. United State foreign policy towards Middle East is subjected for his benefits, as

controlling access is a cornerstone of U.S Middle East policy. U.S is highly dependent on

imported oil. Persian Gulf accounts for 10 percent of the oil used in the U.S. Whereas, U.S

domestic oil production supplies about 10 percent of total oil used for consumption. The U.S is

strongly pledged to protecting Gulf oil, although only about 10 percent of oil used in the U.S is

imported from the territory. Gulf oil was and remains important because of its influence on the

worldwide economy. As U.S rivals in Europe and Japan depend very much on gulf oil than the

U.S does. As 30 percent of European oil imports and nearly 80 percent of Japan¶s come from the



Gulf. Therefore U.S can have a significant impact on these countries by having a control on Gulf

Oil.

The Gulf Cooperation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United

Arab Emirates, Bahrain), Iran and Iraq jointly possess 64 percent of the world¶s proven oil

resources. The most important amid in Gulf States is Saudi Arabia which alone controls 27

percent of the world¶s oil supplies. Saudi Arabia¶s light unrefined oil is particularly striving after

in the market by U.S industries for intricate uses such as production of air plane fuels (Swofford

122). More over, all the money which is earned by Saudi Arabia from U.S is gone back to him,

when Saudi army purchases weapons from U.S weapon dealers.

On 17 February 2009, President Obama approved the deployment of 17,000 United

States troops to Afghanistan. About this decision Obama explains to CNN, ³This increase is

necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the

strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires.´( Mcgrane 2007) According to

BBC the President Obama¶s decision is considered as a µpositive development¶ by the Afghan

government. Basically this enforcement is to increase pressure on all the nations partake in the

multinational force. Obama administration talks of a review in its policies towards Afghanistan

but this review might not come up with the adequate answers. Anyhow there is no simple way

out of the crisis, because Karzai is not easily replaced and Pakistan¶s government can be

uprooted by the terrorists. Besides this there is the tension betwixt Pakistan and India, two

nuclear powers that deteriorate at any moment. (Mcgrane 2007)

One thing that is opened to all that mismanagement of Afghanistan may prove to be an

irremediable mistake. Obama¶s chracter now can also be seen with the suspicious eye, because as

a senator Obama had opposed the invasion of nearly 30,000 additional U.S troops into Iraq. But



now as a commander in chief, he also orders to send additional military troops to Afghanistan.

Surely now Obama briefs that Afghanistan was the right place to wage war on terror not the Iraq.

As on 17 February 2009, Obama gave a concise statement that, ³there is no more solemn duty as

a president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm¶s way.´ (Mcgrane 2007)

Question which is raised about the American¶s wars and their related impacts on the U.S

economy is that, whether the military expenditure support economic growth or retard it. This

question is raised because the U.S in 1990s spent a larger part of its gross domestic product on

defense. But this is a fact that Russia in 1990s spent almost three times more of its GDP on

defense, and eventually faces economic chaos. Classical economists Adam Smith said, ³The

national debts resulting from war, enfeebled every state « enriching in most cases the idle and

profuse debtor at the expense of the industrious and frugal creditor.´ (Barbara 2006) United

States global commitments are now greater than its capacity to fund them, while the continuous

high levels of rampart spending can and usually have turned major nations into minor ones.

One of the most troubling problems affecting the impact of war on the economy was to deal with

swiftly rising public debts. More than a year after the invasion of U.S on Iraq, some economists

prophesied a sharp drop in U.S economy. No doubt that initially the individual companies are

profiting from military contracts. But in a long run, businesses are adversely affected by the war

leading by the event of 9-11; business community accepted that the situation in Iraq is hurting

the investment climate a lot. The situation arises from the war in Afghanistan and Iraq motivated

investors to focus their attention on war rather than starlike corporate profits. As Goodwin says,

³It is overdone, but the market hates uncertainty.´ Iraq and Afghanistan war is not the biggest

issue but just a factor that affecting the businessmen confidence. (Barbara 2006)



Besides this fear of terrorism, the rise of Chinese economy and the improving technology

throughout the world are the factors that affects their morale and force them to wait and see what

happens next. The prices of crude oil if raised have a direct impact on economy and indirect

impact on the businesses. As higher energy costs are seen as taxes on the economy. And when

the consumers and businesses have to pay more for air-conditioning or gasoline they obviously

have less money to spend in other parts of the economy. The cost of U.S operations in Iraq is

now approaching to $150 billion, whereas Congress is still considering a White House request

for $25 billion. (Barbara 2006)

Costs have consistently surpassed the government predictions. In September 2002, White

House economic advisor Lawrence B. Lindsey appraised that the cost of encroaching Iraq could

amount to betwixt $100 billion and $200 billion. In October 2007 Congress Budget Office

(CBO) said in a report that the U.S had already expend $368 billion in Iraq, $200 billion in

Afghanistan and besides all that $45 billion to related services such as veterans care, training and

other investigating services. Whereas CBO estimates that if the war is going on then the cost of

war in Iraq till 2017, might top $1 trillion with $705 billion in interest payments. While the total

cost of Iraq and Afghanistan wars could reach $2.4 trillion. (Barbara 2006)

Still some experts say that these figures given by the CBO and other government officials

are quite less than the actual. Noble prize winning economist and former economic advisor to

President Bill Clinton Joseph E. Stiglitz, with another economist Linda Bilmes stated that, ³the

total macroeconomic costs of the Iraq war itself would surpass $2 trillion.´ Lately, a group of

democrats on the U.S congressional Joint Economic Committee emancipated a report that long

term cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan might range betwixt $2.6 trillion and $4.5 trillion



depending upon the fact that how speedily the U.S forces are drawn from the occupied areas.

(Swofford 2008)

The basic synopsis of United States policy for both Iraq and Afghanistan are matters of

ample bipartisan consensus. Democrats, Republicans and the military, unanimously agreed that

there should be withdrawal of forces from Iraq, reinforcement send to Afghanistan but

development of their native army should be first priority, besides this build pressure on

Islamabad to retaliate Taliban safe heavens in northwest Pakistan. Obama¶s foreign policy has no

difference than its predecessors have. The deployment of troops in Afghanistan by Obama is to

some extent good and some extent bad. Good in this manner that it might helps to uproot the

terrorism and extremism from this area, and bad in this manner that the Afghanis now realize the

facts or consider this as a challenge for their selves. And in the second case the conditions

become worst. There should be a dialogue policy instead of attacking someone. Dialogue not in

this way; O! Rubbish listen me. Because talking in this way irritates everyone. It should be like

this; O! Brother if you interested than I have something that really helps you. America has to

learn a lesson from the Russia, because no matter how small a state is but it has all right to

protect her sovereignty.



WORKCITED

Biddle, Dr Stephen. "Afghanistan, Iraq and US strategy in 2009." 11 Feb 2009. 26 Apr 2009

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Biddle%20HASC%20Testimony%2

02-12-09%202009.pdf

Davidson, Kenneth. "The real reason America is invading Iraq." 20 March 2003. Copyright ©

2003 The Age Company Ltd. 26 Apr 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/19/1047749824415.html

Mcgrane, Victoria. "Obama: More troops now to Afghanistan." 20 Jul 2007. 2008 Capitol News

Company LLC. 26 Apr 2009 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11893.html

Barbara H, Sue Kirchhoff. "Eyes are on Iraq war's effect on U.S. economy." 06 Aug 2006.

Copyright 2008 USA TODAY. 26 Apr 2009

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-iraq-effect_x.htm

Swofford, Anthony, Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan: Eyewitness Accounts of the

Occupation. 1st. Haymarket Books, Sep 2008. Print.

Documents

Topic Obama's Military Strategy in Afghanistan