The Obama administration seems intent on "winning" the Afghanistan war. Obama portrays the war in this Central Asian country as the good war or the real "war on terror." This war was begun by Bush in 2001, but will continue under a president that claims to be an agent of change. What has changed when the new president is intent on escalating the war in Afghanistan on behalf of U.S. imperialism? There are currently 37,000 US troops in the country but Obama has determined this is not enough to "win" the war. The additional troops will include a Marine Expeditionary Brigade to be sent this spring, and an Army Stryker Brigade to be sent later this summer. There will also be a need for additional support troops and equipment. In his announcement Obama said, "This increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires."
The deployment decision indicates the deterioration of the Afghan war from the point of view of the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence officials.Top U.S. officials have urged immediate actions in Afghanistan to avoid the implosion of the puppet government of Hamid Karzai. Last week, Obama's new Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair,told Congress that Pakistan and Afghanistan "have to work hard to repulse" the threat from al Queda and Taliban forces to avoid a total collapse of the government. Blair testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that, "No improvement in Afghanistan is possible without Pakistan taking control of its border areas and improving governance, creating economic and educational opportunities throughout the country." The U.S. put pressure on Pakistan to get more control of it border adjacent to Afghanistan. In much of this area, Pakistan exercises only nominal control with Islamic and tribal forces exercising real control. (Recently the Pakistan government announced that it will enforce Islamic law in some parts of this area in order to placate Islamic forces.)
While Obama has clearly chosen to use the military option to accomplish U.S. goals in Afghanistan, he also intends to use other weapons as well, including diplomacy. He stated on February 17, "I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means...There is no more solemn duty as president than the decision to deploy our armed forces into harm's way. I do it today mindful that the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention and swift action." Diplomacy should be viewed as just another tool in the U.S. arsenal, as is clear from the recent "diplomatic" trip to the area by Richard Holbrooke. He visited Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India to put pressure on these governments to increase their cooperation with the U.S. "war on terror." Holbrooke told Indian leaders, "For the first time in 60 years since independence, your country, Pakistan and the US all face an enemy that poses a direct threat to our leadership, our capitals and our people."The Pentagon is already training Pakistani troops to fight along the border. Holbrooke put pressure on Pakistan to increase military cooperation with the U.S. He also attempted to smooth over disputes such as the frequent U.S. missile strikes against alleged militants in Pakistan. These strikes have included many civilian casualties and increased Pakistani public pressure against the Pakistan government for its military cooperation with the U.S.
Obama also intends to pressure U.S. allies to increase their aid to U.S. imperialism as well. Today Obama is visiting Canada which currently has troops in Afghanistan. It is expected that Canadian leaders will be asked to increase their troop level as well as to provide additional economic assistance to the Afghan government. Other American allies currently have an additional 30,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan. Britain has the most, with 9,000 troops there. NATO is leading some of these allied troops.
The Obama administration is working to increase NATO cooperation with the U.S. in South Asia. This diplomacy is paying dividends as indicated by a statement made at the beginning of a current NATO meeting of defense ministers in Poland. One of the main agenda items is the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Before beginning this meeting, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated to the media, "We should increase military-to-military engagement in Pakistan and deepen the political dialogue. I can say again that I believe the Pakistani government is serious about fighting extremism. What we need in NATO is to stop seeing Afghanistan in isolation and to start seeing it in a more regional approach. That is why we deepen our cooperation with Pakistan because the same people are trying to destabilize the situation in Afghanistan and in Pakistan."
At a NATO meeting, the United States will urge its allies to increase their commitments in Afghanistan, just as the U.S. did this week. This is what Obama means by diplomacy.It is also increasingly clear that the Obama administration and Pentagon officials see developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan as intricately linked. The danger is that the war in Afghanistan, which has already crossed the border with missile attacks and even limited U.S. troop incursions into Pakistan, could rapidly escalate into an open regional war. The reason for this recent escalation by Obama is so that the U.S. can "win" in Afghanistan. A U.S. win is a win for imperialism and it will come at great cost to the people of Afghanistan and the region. It is not in the American interest to achieve an imperialist victory.
We must demand the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in that country as well as all the troops of U.S. allies. We must demand that the U.S. stop expanding the war into Pakistan. The people of Afghanistan and Pakistan deserve peace, not more imperialist war.