If Iraq was George W. Bush's war, the Afghanistan war is surely Barack Hussein Obama's. Richard Holbroke is a well regarded diplomat, but he seems to have run out of ideas and in the process Obama and Holbroke have got the region enbroiled in a major war and the world does not seem to notice. Using Diego Garcia as a base from where war materiel is being ferried to Kandhahar in chartered Russian planes, the US war effort in Afghanistan stands poised for, yes, the infamous word once again, surge. At least George W Bush went through the motions of a public debate and even presented the surge strategy as an off shoot of the Iraq Study Group. No such nicety with Obama: he is rushing in where far wiser men have failed to make much headway. I am ofcourse speaking of Alexander anf Chengiz Khan. It is unlikely that Obama will succeed where these men have failed and Obama is doing exactly what his predecessors had done: conquer and subjugate the Afghans. This policy is wrong and will soon result in escalating casualities of American and European soldiers ( the US public, I do understand is not mightily concerned about civillian casualities) and the political will to fight on will evaporate leaving a far greater threat than the Taliban ever were.
The civillian death toll in Afghanistan is far higher than it was during the trenure of George W Bush. The NATO reliance on air-strikes is inflicting unacceptable casualities on civillaians and the US military has no expalnation to offer except to say that they "taget" only actionable assets.The US administration itself is in a dilema: should they go in for a Counter insurgency strategy or a counter terrorist strategy. General Stanley A McChrystal who has the support of Obama, though Secretary of Defence, Gates, is not too enthused about him, is a strong advocate of counter-insurgency and therefore the level of civillian casualities has increased radically. Air strikes are called by field commanders without even a modicum of consultation with the overall command structure and the result has been disastrous. The US media is silent on the issue of Afghnistan civillian casualities. Infact the UN in its estimates has given figures that are likely to under estimate the real number. In the whole of 2008 there were 705 civilian casualities, in the first three months of the Obama Presidency there have been 420 deaths and only about 12 or so are taliban or "actionable assets,"rest were innocent men, women and children.
Is there a way out. No one is suggesting even for a moment that US should leave or impose on itself a time line for withdrawal. The stakes are too high for such heroics. Af-Pak policy of the Obama Administrations needs to focus on the one element that is common to Pakistan, Afghaistan, the Taliban and al qaeda. This is the Pashtun element. The backbone of the problems in pakistan and Afghanistan is the Pashtun tribes which are distributed between the North West Frontier of Pakistan and Southern and Western Afghanistan.Tribal loyalties and values are more important than the Wahabi inspired Islam that was introduced in this region only in the middle of the nineteenth century. Due to the pressure from the Obama Adminsitration, the Pakistan military is niow engaged in a vicilous and brutal war in Waziristan and nearly 3 m,illion people have been affected.
A better and less costly policy would be to nudge the divided tribes into greater autonomy and the creation of a Paktun Republic which will be busy running its affairs and with that the al-qaeda safe haven will cease to exist. The creation of a united Paktunistan carvwed out of the tribal areas of Pakistan anf Pashtun dominated areas of AFGHANISTAN is the only viable solution.