Thinking Afresh on Afghanistan

Defence Secretary Robert Gates, perhaps, sounded realistic as he declared Afghanistan as the new administration’s ‘greatest test’ and top military priority, but cautioned that US objectives should be ‘limited’.

Rejecting the notion of Washington harping on the military muscles in the two wars that are now Bush legacy, he said the primary objective for America should be to ensure stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see that they do not become safe havens for Al Qaeda and its likes.

The secretary, who brings with him rich knowledge of the region and has also served as CIA chief under the Bush administration, enjoys respect as a moderate and a strategist. Gates rightly says that fight against terrorism had been less than stellar, and the reason could be none other than the jingoistic obsession of opening up the Iraq front, by the former president, when Afghanistan demanded serious attention.

He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that rather than the pursuit of democracy, the mission should be to ensure that Afghanistan attains stability.

His comments marked a significant narrowing of US ambitions even as Washington prepares to nearly double the size of its forces in Afghanistan on the model of Iraq-like surge operation. He was also blunt in saying that American military involvement in Iraq is winding down, and he would place on the table all options for President Obama to decide, including the withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months. Such a policy represents a notable departure from the position of the Bush administration, which has long emphasised the importance of establishing a strong, democratic government in Afghanistan, and continuing with the military option.

Perhaps Gates, and thinkers like him at the Pentagon and the White House, have realised that neither a military solution, nor leaving Afghanistan in the lurch is possible, as they did on attaining mean objectives after defeating the Soviet Union. The region and the world cannot afford to withstand another such blunder.

Thus, rather than pursuing a mindless policy of staying put in Afghanistan or dragging on with unattainable military objectives, it’s time for Washington to usher in an era of peace and political stability in the war-ravaged country, and plan an exit strategy at the earliest. Gates, fortunately enough, will have the added impetus of a similar thinking from generals in the battlefield and Pentagon, such as General Petraeus who advocated the option of talking it out with the Taleban.

It is another promising sign that the new administration is working on a strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan by drawing lessons from experiences and reality on the ground. This is what makes President Obama’s agenda of change achievable and realistic to the core.