fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
Editorial
The Petraeus effect
The writer is a defence analyst and retired as air-vice marshal in the Pakistan Air Force
No, this one is not about India, so it might lag a bit in the interest and hence the comments race. Indian followers of this paper enrich the blogosphere more than our own. That is how the Indian mindset maintains the spotlight on Pakistan. Indias Pakistan centrism, you might say? Friend Ejaz Haider has kindled enough fire under this entrenchment.
There is another great game on in the Afghan fire that must also find our equal attention. Petraeus is an important military leader and a commander, now heading Nato/US forces in Afghanistan, and was poignantly demoted to move down the ladder from heading the entire Centcom to a field commanders position in Afghanistan. He is well-known in Pakistan as someone whose input in Americas Afghan policy has been persistent. He has an impressive constituency with the Congress in Washington and, before taking over Afghanistan, was frequently hobnobbing with the politicos of various select committees of the Congress. It is popularly established that he may actually harbour some well-exhibited interest in positioning himself as a presidential hopeful, a la Eisenhower. That remains to be seen. And for that to materialise, he must first negotiate the Afghan test where none of his great ilk have survived the complex and multi-faceted minefield.
He is also a big pain for President Barack Obama. Fired by the assumed success of the surge in Iraq, which he claims as his initiative, he sought a repeat in Afghanistan. As the commander of Centcom, he used Nato/US General McChrystals shoulder to seek more troops to find victory. President Obama, perhaps too conscious of his legacy too early in his tenure of office, procrastinated for weeks before agreeing to the half-way house not a 50,000 but a 30,000 surge. He had neither pleased Petraeus and co., nor the liberal left who want America and Obama out. Afghanistan and a pitiable mid-term elections performance remain the two stories of Obamas incumbency. If it remains the same for the second term too, it will be a significant let-down, but to reach that stage of a second homecoming for a president that is seen to be indecisive and procrastinating is still a long shot.
To politicians, money spent on the war will decide how long America can sustain Bushs adventure; to the generals it shall be how to keep resourcing their fiefdoms and those of the military-industrialist conglomerate. Meanwhile, Obama wastes his political capital on someone elses war. True to Obamas political style, both get something. The generals get their war because the American departure is now slated for December 2014, and the liberals, a date. It also leaves both hanging will the political process lead in Afghanistan, or will the military determine when a political process might begin? This underlying tussle will form the labyrinth of Afghanistan for the next four years, long after President Obama may be history. Take your pick. Add to it some other cooks in the kitchen; the CIA, the state department and the Holbrooke and co inc., the aid Barrons beltway bandits and Afghanistan will likely remain interesting.
So, if you blame Pakistan and General Kayani for hedging their bets think again. For Pakistan, the pain is obvious and the road long. As long as the Americans stay in the neighbourhood, they will keep inflicting on Pakistan the wages of our geography and some intended and some unintended neighbourly love. Petraeus remains the champion of military engagement and is unwilling to listen to some fine advice by Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt this war cannot be won militarily, it can only be lost militarily. What might save the day for Nato will be contriving a political victory. Is Petraeus listening?
Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2010.
Shahzad Chaudhry
The Petraeus effect
The writer is a defence analyst and retired as air-vice marshal in the Pakistan Air Force
No, this one is not about India, so it might lag a bit in the interest and hence the comments race. Indian followers of this paper enrich the blogosphere more than our own. That is how the Indian mindset maintains the spotlight on Pakistan. Indias Pakistan centrism, you might say? Friend Ejaz Haider has kindled enough fire under this entrenchment.
There is another great game on in the Afghan fire that must also find our equal attention. Petraeus is an important military leader and a commander, now heading Nato/US forces in Afghanistan, and was poignantly demoted to move down the ladder from heading the entire Centcom to a field commanders position in Afghanistan. He is well-known in Pakistan as someone whose input in Americas Afghan policy has been persistent. He has an impressive constituency with the Congress in Washington and, before taking over Afghanistan, was frequently hobnobbing with the politicos of various select committees of the Congress. It is popularly established that he may actually harbour some well-exhibited interest in positioning himself as a presidential hopeful, a la Eisenhower. That remains to be seen. And for that to materialise, he must first negotiate the Afghan test where none of his great ilk have survived the complex and multi-faceted minefield.
He is also a big pain for President Barack Obama. Fired by the assumed success of the surge in Iraq, which he claims as his initiative, he sought a repeat in Afghanistan. As the commander of Centcom, he used Nato/US General McChrystals shoulder to seek more troops to find victory. President Obama, perhaps too conscious of his legacy too early in his tenure of office, procrastinated for weeks before agreeing to the half-way house not a 50,000 but a 30,000 surge. He had neither pleased Petraeus and co., nor the liberal left who want America and Obama out. Afghanistan and a pitiable mid-term elections performance remain the two stories of Obamas incumbency. If it remains the same for the second term too, it will be a significant let-down, but to reach that stage of a second homecoming for a president that is seen to be indecisive and procrastinating is still a long shot.
To politicians, money spent on the war will decide how long America can sustain Bushs adventure; to the generals it shall be how to keep resourcing their fiefdoms and those of the military-industrialist conglomerate. Meanwhile, Obama wastes his political capital on someone elses war. True to Obamas political style, both get something. The generals get their war because the American departure is now slated for December 2014, and the liberals, a date. It also leaves both hanging will the political process lead in Afghanistan, or will the military determine when a political process might begin? This underlying tussle will form the labyrinth of Afghanistan for the next four years, long after President Obama may be history. Take your pick. Add to it some other cooks in the kitchen; the CIA, the state department and the Holbrooke and co inc., the aid Barrons beltway bandits and Afghanistan will likely remain interesting.
So, if you blame Pakistan and General Kayani for hedging their bets think again. For Pakistan, the pain is obvious and the road long. As long as the Americans stay in the neighbourhood, they will keep inflicting on Pakistan the wages of our geography and some intended and some unintended neighbourly love. Petraeus remains the champion of military engagement and is unwilling to listen to some fine advice by Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt this war cannot be won militarily, it can only be lost militarily. What might save the day for Nato will be contriving a political victory. Is Petraeus listening?
Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2010.
Shahzad Chaudhry
