Obama's Military Strategy in Afghanistan - Term Paper Example

Obamas Military Strategy in Afghanistan The United has two primary national concerns in this conflict. At first that Afghanistan may not becomea 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, “Barack Obama has promised ‘change’. 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, “U.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, “This 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 ‘positive 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, “there 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, “The 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, “It 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, “the 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%202-12-09%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 wars 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. Read More