news details |
|
|
| Challenges before a lame duck regime | | | Hiranmay Karlekar
Given the bitterness be-
tween the Democrats
and Republicans, and the pressure on the latter from the ultra right-wing Tea Party faction, will the US be able to act effectively on burning global issues?
That the Republicans would drub the Democrats in the mid-term election to the Senate, House of Representatives and gubernatorial offices in the United States earlier this month, was clear for a long time to even those without extraordinary powers of clairvoyance. And, despite pockets of resistance by the Democrats, it was a case of an outcome foretold. The reasons, including the fading of President Barack Obama's charisma, were many and well-known - the failure of policies on Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa, and to anticipate the seriousness of the threat posed by the Islamic State or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria; the failure of the economy to soar; glitches in the implementation of the administration's emblematic healthcare legislation, alleged inadequacy in dealing with the Ebola threat, rumblings over immigration and, of course, the fell touch of incumbency. These, therefore, merit the barest of reiteration.
The argument that some of President Obama's troubles were because of the flawed legacy - the totally unwarranted war in Iraq, for example - he inherited from George Bush Junior, and some to motivated and sustained opposition to his comprehensive healthcare programme, is valid. But such unfair loss of popularity is not uncommon in politics and is a part of the occupational hazards that the practitioners of the art of the possible must suffer.
Of greater interest are the consequences that are likely to follow the electoral outcome in the areas of foreign and domestic American policies.
The latter, including a likely assault on the healthcare programme, is primarily an American problem. The fallout in foreign affairs must engage the world, given the US's global salience. For India, two areas to watch are Afghanistan and Iraq. Many argue that the situation in the former is much better than, say, in Syria, Iraq or North Africa. The Afghan National Army's casualties - 4,500 in the last year, and 5,000 (at the time of writing) in this, have, however, been increasing, as has been the incidence of terrorist attack in Kabul. The Afghan National Army's ability to withstand the Pakistan-backed, rapidly snowballing Taliban offensive, is by no means certain. Hence the question of continued presence of the US forces in the country.
Under the Bilateral Security Arrangement and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation status of Forces Agreement, both signed on September 30 with the new Afghan Government headed by President Ashraf Ghani, 9,800 American and at least 2,000 Nato troops will remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on December 31, 2014. Headquartered in Kabul and stationed in six bases across the country, most of them will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counter-terrorism missions. By 2016, the number of US troops would be halved to 4,900 based only in Kabul and Bagram air base.
Whether the roles and force levels of the US and Nato troops are enough remains to be seen, as also how the ANA fares against the Taliban. Besides, what happens after the scheduled departure of the US forces, save a token presence of several hundred in Kabul by the end of 2016? The Afghan military has virtually no combat air force and is grossly deficient in heavy field weapons. Hence the relevance of the question: Will President Obama enhance the US troop strength and correct the Afghan military's deficiencies if things get worse in the next couple of years? Also, in that event, what arrangement will he leave behind for the post-2016 period?
America's changed posture against the Islamic State makes both questions highly relevant. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was completed on December 31, 2011, following an agreement signed in 2008 during President George Bush Junior's presidency. During an address at Fort Bragg in the US, President Obama had said on December 14, 2011, that the Americans were leaving behind a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq."
Yet less than three years after that, the rapid advance of the IS forces compelled the US not only to spearhead an alliance against it but launch, with nominal support from its allies, air-strikes. Besides, President Obama has authorised the deployment of an additional 1,500 American troops in the coming months, doubling the number of Americans meant to train and advise Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they plan a major offensive next spring against IS fighters. In terms of money, the Obama administration will seek the US Congress's sanction for $5 billion for military operations in the Middle East against the IS, including $1.6 billion to train and equip Iraqi troops.
The events in Iraq will be closely watched. The US administration officials have repeatedly insisted that the doubling of US troops to 3,000 did not militate against President Obama's policy of Americans not engaging in combat in Iraq. According to an official recently, Mr Obama had "made clear that we are not going to be putting US men and women back into combat. We will continue to assure people that this is a different kind of mission."
The IS forces' advance, which seemed to carry all before it this summer, has doubtless been stalled. The airstrikes have inflicted heavy losses in men and material, restricted the movements of IS combatants, and boosted the morale of Iraqi and Kurdish troops. The IS's financial base in Syria has been damaged. It has lost some of the grounds it had gained to Iraqi Government troops, Kurdish PeshMerga forces, Shiite militias and Armed Sunni tribesmen. Its forces, however, are adapting themselves to the restrictions imposed by the air strikes and holding on to most of the territory they have gained. It would take troops on the ground to expel them and hold the ground they had vacated.
Years of civil war, however, have worn out both Government and Opposition forces in Syria. Iraqi forces, severely undermined by corruption, sectarianism, vindictiveness and worse during the last Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's tenure, will take time to emerge as an effective fighting force. What till then? Will the US forces, if push comes to a shove, play a combat role?
Not everything will depend on what President Obama wants. He cannot act without the concurrence of the Congress which Republicans dominate after the recent elections. Given the bitterness between the Democrats and Republicans, and the pressure on the latter from the ultra right-wing Tea Party faction, will the US be able to hammer out effective policies in both areas?
(courtesy @dailypioneer.com) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
