Obama's Elusive Goals

Despite advancements in the war in Afghanistan, Obama’s ultimate goals are elusive. In a TV interview after declaring his new strategy in Afghanistan, the American president said he is concerned with hunting Al Qaeda to stop it from returning to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama is determined to send 21,000 troops to Afghanistan, bring that country’s U.S. troop total to 60,000. Can Obama’s fight against Al Qaeda be the only target in his military plan to the exclusion of anything else, including the Taliban?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attitude was no different. When she admitted that the American administration ceased calling the war against Al Qaeda “the global war on terror,” as it was with President Bush, because it indicated America’s involvement in war against any armed group. However, Obama’s strategic goal is to dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda.

In the same sense and in Lahay’s conference on Afghanistan, the attendants and concerned parties, more than 80 countries and NGOs, focused on the renewing the political and financial support of Afghanistan before its presidential elections are held next August.

As if America regarded the conference as a chance to gain the world’s support for its plan, to raise funds for rebuilding the economic, political and security capabilities of Afghanistan, to get to grips with planting and trafficking in narcotics, to court the Afghani cooperation in addition to financially help Pakistan combat Al Qaeda! As if the utmost thing for Obama is to stop Al Qaeda bringing his country under attack and to get out of that war while saving face.

However, things might not be guaranteed to work that way. The Pakistani Taliban is threatening to attack the White House and it is attempting to unite with Afghanistan to “warmly welcome” new American soldiers with bombings and suicide operations.

Even with Obama’s strategy being of a social and humane nature, based on daringly admitting that military power alone would not suffice achieving Washington’s goals and containing the process of developing Afghani state, the mission with which NATO forces are entrusted. Even if such a plan will not appropriate the decision making when it reconciles the field Marshals’ views of a long-run commitment and intensive military presence with the skeptical attitudes of politicians when considering the inclusion of regional players like Iran, Russia, China, India and UN.

Obama’s plan may, contrary to his expectations, get him entangled in a political and military swamp for long years to come and expose the U.S. to more dangers and menaces.

Can’t there be any alternatives on the horizon?