World Political Blog » Aid

What will Obama do in Afghanistan ? More troops, or … ?

Ashish — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:40:40 +0000

When people talk about Afghanistan and its history, there is unanimity that no outside country can win inside Afghanistan. The British tried it in ‘The Great Game’s in the 19th century, and they lost troops, but never looked to be in a position where they could claim that they had repressed all discontent. The Soviets tried it in the 1980′s, but they were defeated by the terrain, by the fierce Afghans (although aided by the combined weight of Saudi Arabia, the US, and Pakistan); all together, it has always been claimed that no outside force can take control of Afghanistan, and it is predicted that the same will happen to the Americans in their effort in Afghanistan.
After the 2001 WTC attacks, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their battle against the Taleban, and literally bombed the Taliban into giving up their entire occupied territory. However, after that the Americans forgot all about history. George Bush gave up the effort in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq, and the unrest in Iraq made sure that Afghanistan did not get enough troops to protect against a resurgent Taleban, there was not enough support to ensure that development of the incredibly backward regions would happen, and the combination of a weak President Karzai supported by former warlords ensured that development and reform would not happen even though it was incredibly needed.
On the other hand, the Taleban, after taking its knocks in 2001, used a strategy of getting support and medical help for its fighters in Pakistan, and slowly started assuming enough strength to attack the US soldiers.

Now the situation in Afghanistan is that there are just not enough troops on the ground to support the cities, forget the countryside where the Taleban reigns supreme. The US military commander in Afghanistan (Gen. Stanley McChrystal), who was given charge earlier this year, has now asked for 40,000 – 60,000 troops more, making clear that less number of troops than that will lead to a defeat. Obama is already facing many of his own supporters who are asking for a reduction of troops from Afghanistan, or even a complete removal. It is difficult for him to add the number of troops requested, but any refusals (or even going with his veep’s half-baked proposal of less troops, and more missiles and UAV’s) will open him upto the charges of being weak on national security. And if the US now withdraws or reduces its presence, or allows the Taleban to control more territory, this will be a sign of weakness that the US cannot really exhibit, given that it has foes such as Al-Qaeda (and its linked organizations), enemy states such as Iran and North Korea. For these foes, a US withdrawal means that the US does not have the stomach to go in for fights, and is an open invitation to attack it closer to home. Obama needs to take the correct decision, looking into mind the long term, and disregarding the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him.

US says, you can use anti-terrorist aid for improving planes

Ashish — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:10:14 +0000

For the last several years, there has been an ongoing political discussion about whether the United States is following the correct policies with regard to getting rid of terrorism emanating from the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, rated by many as the most likely place to generate the next big terrorist attack in the Western World. Part of that discussion is whether the United States has relied too much on Pakistan, and not pushed it hard enough to get rid of the entire support structure for terrorism in the tribal border regions. Implicit in this discussion is that Pakistan is not really doing all it can to get rid of terrorism in the region, to take on the vast support for the Taleban and terrorist elements in the wild ungoverned regions. Now, Pakistan has always claimed that this was a difficult task, that these regions have historically had a reputation for resisting any attempts to enforce a central governance; and that periodic pushes by the Army and border guards have only met fierce resistance and let to further embittering of the population in these regions, thus leading to a further support for the so-called resistance fighters.
At some point it is difficult to blame only Pakistan for this. The US has had a huge amount of analysis that claims that there is a lack of governance, civil reconstruction, and enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan. What was required that there be a push to strengthen the regional paramilitary forces, combined with an active and huge construction program in these regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is when the affected population see only a military push, and the same old bad conditions with no scope for improvement that they tend to move further towards the extremist position. And in Pakistan, the Bush Administration seems to have had a blinkered vision with taking the actions of President Musharraf at face value, not applying the pressure that might have made things much better. For example, there has never been much pressure to improve the condition and training of the regional paramilitary force that might be able to help turn the tide.
All this came to my mind when I read this news report:

The United States plans to shift about $230 million in aid to Pakistan from counterterrorism programs to upgrading the nation’s aging F-16 fighter jets. The new government is facing “a terrible financial crisis with food and fuel problems,” the official said, and the Pakistani government “would rather tell its public they are spending their money on food and fuel,” so it asked the United States to pay for the F-16 upgrades from the U.S. aid fund. Last year, Congress mandated that $300 million in aid to Pakistan go toward fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban, partly by beefing up law enforcement and developing tribal areas of the country that are hostile to the United States.
Skeptical lawmakers worry that the F-16 upgrades will divert funding from crucial counterterrorism programs and could be more about helping Pakistan competing with its rival, India, than fighting terror. Nita Lowey, chairwoman of a House subcommittee on foreign operations, said the request from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to reprogram the funding “raises serious concerns.” Lowey is asking for more information before signing off on the change. “Congress provided these funds specifically for counterterrorism and law enforcement activities,” Lowey said in a written statement.

This is about as short-sighted as can be. It is of critical importance that funds be spent on improving the lot of the tribal areas and improve the force that works over there. Instead, if these funds are used for improving F-16′s, machines that are hardly of much use in anti-terrorism except when a force needs the support in a head-on fight with the terrorist, not something that is typically seen in the border regions.

Myanmar says that it will now allow aid workers to enter

Ashish — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:06:51 +0000

Myanmar has always been an eyesore to the international community. The nation has been in the grip of a brutal military dictatorship since 1962, and has in the past canceled elections that gave Aung San Suu Kii (the daughter of the founder of Burma) the majority, and ever since then, they have placed her in house arrest (it’s soon going to be 20 years now).
But their current actions have outraged the international community much more strongly. Around 3 weeks ago, a strong cyclone, ‘Nargis’, struck the country and brought with it a storm surge that struck the Irrawaddy Delta, carrying a 12 foot high water wave that caused immense devastation and sorrow to the country. First reports were that the storm caused the death of thousands (ten thousands) of people and led to a disaster situation. In such cases, the normal reaction of the international community is to mobilize aid, and get aid workers in to help in the distribution and relief planning. The military junta ruling the country however refused to let aid workers in, stopping many at the airport and stopping media and others as well. Even aid supplies that were sent in were confiscated (with the military claiming that they will organize the distribution).

However, in the reports that continued to come out of the country, it was clear that aid was not reaching the affected people, and the soldiers were not spotted trying to help people; it seemed that the army was not trying to make an active effort to setup a strong relief mechanism. This let to a massive outcry against the attitude of the junta, and people in fact started talking about forcing the junta to take relief groups and charity workers. But finally it seems that the junta is willing to let in foreign aid workers:

In what he said appeared to be a breakthrough after three weeks of obstructionism, the United Nations general secretary, Ban Ki-moon, said Friday that the leader of Myanmar’s military junta had promised to allow into the country “all aid workers” of any nationality. But Ban gave no indication when the Myanmar government would allow aid workers to enter the country and whether they would be allowed to travel to the badly-hit Irrawaddy Delta.
Relief officials said a key issue would be whether any more relief workers allowed in from outside would be allowed free access to hard-hit areas where the United Nations says only a quarter of some 2.4 million victims of the cyclone have been reached with aid. In recent days, Myanmar has allowed a modest flow of supplies and relief workers into the country, but the military government continues to bar foreigners from entering the delta region to assess damage and coordinate the delivery of aid.

A lot of aid groups are waiting to watch and see whether this is something that the junta will finally implement, or was this announcement made just to relieve some pressure and the actual implementation of this will not happen. Aid workers are waiting to see whether they can enter the most badly affected regions and make their own evaluation.