 From being the first non-white U.S. President to accepting a challenging legacy from his predecessor, President Obama faces huge challenges both at home and abroad. Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of U.S.A., created history by becoming the first non-white occupant of the White House. On Nov. 4, 2008, Americans gave Obama 68% of the nation's electoral votes. Two weeks into his new job, Obama's job approval rating was at its peak-76%. A year into office and his popularity graph has plummeted below 50%. Opinion polls show Americans sharply divided on key issues like health care and the economy.
In all fairness President Obama accepted a challenging legacy from the former president George W. Bush, and since then he is battling the worst economic crisis in 70 years along with a nightmarish two-front war scenario in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 50 percent job approval barrier is traditionally seen as a crucial one for U.S. presidents, affecting their political standing and ability to attract support for their policies in Congress. As he approaches mid-term elections, Obama will struggle to turn the graph around. The main challenges for him remain tackling the economic melt-down and extricating U.S.A. from the Iraq and Afghanistan.
Credit must be given to Obama for his attention to domestic affairs, addressing the economic crisis and trying to revive confidence. He has made reasonable progress through the passage of a stimulus package and halting a financial free fall. He is on the verge of securing a healthcare bill-his signature reform measure that represents a significant piece of social-welfare legislation. Coming to the two theatres of war, according to Information Clearing House information, the number of Iraqis slaughtered in U.S. War and occupation of Iraq is: "1,366,350"; while the number of U.S. Military personnel sacrificed (officially acknowledged) in U.S. War and occupation of Iraq is 4,691 and the cost of U.S. War and occupation of Iraq is: $701,481,857,932. On the other front, the number of International Occupation Force Troops slaughtered in Afghanistan comes to 1,589 while the cost incurred so far on sustaining operations in Afghanistan is $248,017,325,165. According to Wikipedia, civilian casualties in Afghanistan since 9/11 range between 11,760 and 31,357. Horrifying figures!
We in South Asia will judge Obama's performance from our perspective although his difficulties at home do affect his policies for the region. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, President Hamid Karzai, despite being accused of sponsoring corruption, was re-elected in a controversial election. On the war front, struggling with mounting casualties in the face of a resurgent Taliban, after vacillating for months, on December 1, 2009, President Obama announced that he would escalate U.S. military involvement by deploying an additional 30,000 soldiers over a period of six months. He also proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date. The following day, the American commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, cautioned that the timeline was flexible and "is not an absolute" and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, when asked by a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee if it is possible that no soldiers would be withdrawn in July 2011, responded, "The president, as commander in chief, always has the option to adjust his decisions." The response of the Taliban to the announced troop surge has been: "You may have the watches but we have the time!" That may be implying that the Taliban will wait for the exit of the coalition forces and take over from where they had left.
Apparently, an addition of 30,000 additional troops will not win the war for U.S. and NATO in Afghanistan; at best it will buy them the break for an exit. Thus Obama is caught in a "catch-22" situation. He cannot afford a mobilization of 300,000 troops, which would be required to do the job; therefore, he can only hold the existing important population and communication centers, while his airpower will be used to flush-out the Taliban. The U.S. thus cannot exit without first preparing the Afghan National Army (ANA) to replace it, which could take years. The peril having been compounded by fears of infiltration of Al Qaeda/Taliban in the rank and file of the ANA, as was demonstrated by the recent attack on the CIA headquarters in Khost.
The relationship with Pakistan has mutated into one of trust deficit. Both sides are wary of the other. Pakistan was bedeviled by the Bush era with demands of "Do More". It was hoped that Pakistan's operations in Swat and South Waziristan would silence its detractors in the U.S. but it has invoked demands for taking on the insurgents in North Waziristan. There is distrust prevailing in the U.S. camp that Pakistan is not willing to engage the Taliban group engaged in insurgency against the coalition forces in Afghanistan. Pakistani security forces have to respond to the clear and present danger to their own assets before they can tackle others. The trust deficit is goaded by the stringent conditions contained in the Kerry-Lugar law. In particular, the provisions of the Act relating to strengthening of democracy in Pakistan, non-interference of the armed forces and spy agencies in political matters and civilian control over military affairs are rooted not in U.S. love for democracy in Pakistan but in its perception of the involvement of security forces of Pakistan in terrorism and nuclear proliferation. The recent promulgation of exposing Pakistanis and citizens of 13 other states to more stringent airport checks has further fueled the distrust.
That brings us to the third country in the equation: India. U.S.-India relations were traditionally sour during the cold-war era, because of India's leanings towards the Soviet Union. However, after the demise of the Soviets, U.S. has sought to woo India, more for the size of its market and a nation it perceives to be the champion of democracy. Giving preference to India in the reconstruction of Afghanistan has fueled suspicions in Pakistan since reportedly, Indian Consulates and Trade Missions in Afghanistan have been used by RAW operatives to destabilize Pakistan. India on the other hand has blamed Pakistan for sponsoring non-state actors in organizing the Mumbai mayhem and other terrorist attacks in India. The U.S. has been urging Pakistan not to consider India as its primary enemy and withdraw some of its forces from the eastern front and deploy them to fight insurgency in the north-west. Unfortunately, India's refusal to return to the dialogue table, brinkmanship and continued oppression of the Kashmiris does not present Pakistan the opportunity to redeploy its forces.
President Obama had initially sent positive signals regarding the resolution of the Kashmir issue but his appointment of Richard Holbrooke as his special envoy for the region did not include India at the reported insistence of India. Indian saber rattling towards China and Pakistan has not been chided by U.S.A. either. Some conspiracy theorists opine that India is being prepared as a bulwark against China. Another point of contention has been the civil-nuclear accord which the U.S. has signed with India but has denied the same to Pakistan.
All in all, President Obama presents a more humane head of state, who is keen to bring peace to the world. His policies for reconstruction and restoration of civic amenities in Afghanistan, Swat and FATA have been lauded. Reaching out to the Muslim Ummah was a bold step but, to achieve success, he has to put his proposals into practice and prove his sincerity in bridging the gap between the different faiths and restore peace in the region to be judged as a great president.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
