The following was first published in The National on October 13, 2009.
Much has been made of the current popularity of a certain book in the Obama White House. Lessons in Disaster blames the American defeat in Vietnam on a failure to establish clear goals for its involvement there, and it appears to be having a marked effect on thinking on Capitol Hill. In particular, the chapter entitled “Never deploy military means in pursuit of indeterminate ends” appears to have frozen a hitherto decisive strategic discussion on the war in Afghanistan.
Divining the influence of the book has captivated the US press, and at least at one press conference the White House has been asked about it. Members of both the current and previous US administrations have been at pains to distinguish the war in Afghanistan from the disaster of Vietnam, with some justification. But one comparison, at least on the US side, is apt: the whys of the war have a habit of being drowned out by the hows as the fighting drags on and victory grows ever more elusive.
But the shift from why to how is also natural, and not necessarily a bad one. In many ways, too much attention on the purpose of the war now threatens defeat. The US invaded Afghanistan to overthrow al Qa’eda in response to the September 11 attacks. The Taliban were only important insofar as they stood in the way of capturing Osama bin Laden. With the architects of the most horrific act of terrorism on US soil in hiding, America became complacent. Neglect of post-war reconstruction efforts and the failure to develop an effective Afghan government allowed the Taliban to regroup and re-insinuate itself into the country. In the eight years since, the Taliban have become the main adversary while al Qa’eda and bin Laden have faded into the background.
Enter General Stanley McChrystal, whose suggestions on a new strategy to reverse the negative trends in Afghanistan are currently under discussion by the Obama administration. The new commander of the US and coalition forces has advised focusing on protecting the population and increasing troop levels, both to accomplish the first goal and speed up the training of Afghan forces. Much like the feted “troop surge” in Iraq, the aim is to employ the principles of counterinsurgency to create a period of relative security which boosts the authority of the central government over the population.
Mr Obama is less receptive to such suggestions than he might once have been. Not only are the lessons of the US military’s last major defeat being digested, but the controversial outcome of the recent Afghan presidential elections has cast doubt on the appropriateness of Gen McChrystal’s advice.
The Afghan government has been a persistent impediment to progress. The controversy surrounding the re-election of Hamid Karzai has only posed an even greater barrier to securing the country and overcoming the Taliban. Whereas once it was only corrupt and ineffective, its basic legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Afghans is now in question.
Even counterinsurgency’s most ardent advocates admit that military efforts in Afghanistan depend on events in Kabul. The support of the population is crucial. Unless the US, its allies and Karzai’s government become better than the Taliban at earning the trust of the Afghans, any victory will be temporary. And as coalition forces are seen, at best, as guests in the country, the Afghan government has a central role to play in any counterinsurgency plan.
Unfortunately, despite the legitimate medium and long-term concerns the White House has about Gen McChrystal’s new plan, there are few good alternatives. A group led by the vice president, Joe Biden, is advocating another course of action: reduce forces and focus efforts on killing senior al Qa’eda and Taliban leaders. With the success of unmanned drone aircraft assassinations of top targets in remote locations, it is easy to see why this might be a tempting alternative to putting additional American lives in danger. But it would also be a mistake. To do so would let the initial reasons for invading Afghanistan shape the strategy for a war that is no longer about killing members of al Qa’eda. Gen McChrystal’s advice is troubled by concerns about the long-term effectiveness of counterinsurgency, but Mr Biden’s plan promises only short-term gains. If organisations like the Taliban and al Qa’eda have demonstrated anything, it is that their existence does not depend on one man or any group of men.
The choice facing Mr Obama is not easy, but all signs point to his embracing Gen McChrystal’s suggestions – he did, after all, hire the man for his specific expertise on counterinsurgency. But the detractors have made their voices heard and the whys will have to be answered before the US renews its commitment to Afghanistan.
The worry is that every time Mr Obama has justified the war, he has framed it as if September 11 happened yesterday and al Qa’eda presented a clear and present danger to America’s national security. It doesn’t, and continuing to paint it as such has poisoned an urgent debate on the most effective manner to win in Afghanistan. After eight years, the war has only made the world less safe by destabilising both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the US has a duty to undo what it has done.
In any war, and especially in wars fought by democracies, why you fight is exceedingly important. Mr Obama is concerned that accepting Gen McChrystal’s call for more troops would be his Gulf of Tonkin resolution. And just like Lyndon Johnson, Mr Obama would be forced to stand before the American people and lie, saying he would not commit “American boys to fighting a war that I think ought to be fought by the boys of Asia to help protect their own land”.
He would do well to recall another quote by John Paul Vann, a leading figure in the Vietnam War: “This is a political war and it calls for discrimination in killing. The best weapon for killing would be a knife, but I’m afraid we can’t do it that way. The worst is an airplane. The next worst is artillery. Barring a knife, the best is a rifle – you know who you’re killing.”
The US faces defeat if it retreats to the air against an enemy that must be fought with knives and rifles. And even if knives and rifles do not guarantee victory, America owes it to the Afghan people, and the world, to try.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Football separates men from the boys
The following was first published in The National on 10 September 2009.
The football season begins today. If that sentence has you checking your calendar, let me rephrase: The football, not soccer, season begins today. This statement will no doubt anger fans of the “beautiful game”. Big deal.
The worst soccer fans can muster are Millwall supporters, whose slogan “everyone hates us, and we don’t care” is also shared with snivelling adolescents. They pale in comparison to fans of the Oakland Raiders to whom Hunter S Thompson referred to as “beyond doubt the sleaziest and rudest and most sinister mob of thugs and wackos ever assembled” – and this from a man who once counted among his bosom buddies members of the Hells Angels.
Or perhaps they can once again rouse Will Batchelor to defend soccer. His sports column in The National this week said football was one part professional wrestling and two parts all-you-can-eat buffet, less sport than drama involving men in tight pants. He is not alone in harbouring such delusions.
Most soccer fans regard their North American cousins with disdain. To these woefully uninformed residents of the ward for the terminally ignorant, football is a sport for soft, flabby men who need time to catch their breath between downs, frequent commercial interruptions for loo breaks and medieval levels of body armour to avoid injury.
I dare them to tell that to a 130kg defensive end, a mountain of muscle with the speed and agility of Usain Bolt. Your average quarterback needs that padding just to survive the first down, and that defensive end needs it to keep himself from breaking his neck when he hits his target with all the kinetic energy of a runaway freight train.
Granted, rugby players do not wear padding, but hop on youtube and watch a rugby tackle, then go watch a quarterback get hit on his blindside. There is no comparison. If anything, removing the pads would make football less dangerous. When boxing introduced the padded glove, permanent head injuries became more common. Before gloves were introduced, punching someone in the jaw was just as likely to break your hand as his jaw. This made one think twice about where they were aiming. Now the average pugilist can hammer away at his opponent’s skull and suffer no ill effect.
But sometimes body armour is just called for. We do not deride the Yorkshire or Lancashire cavalry for wearing all that armour during the War of the Roses. The game of football is played by sumo wrestlers who can sprint, it is prudent to take precautions.
Soccer is indeed beautiful. The countless hours professional players devote towards honing their skills is revealed in the marvels of footwork and ball control on the pitch. Their endurance is unmatched in most team sports. But soccer is to football as fencing is to war. Some people prefer the former, others the latter.
Much of the hostility between soccer and football is over a shared name. This is the result of having a common ancestor, a game that is still played in the United Kingdom as the Royal Shrovetide Football match – a sport so brutal that the rules include: no killing.
Maybe Millwall should challenge the Raiders to a match and settle the debate once and for all, instead of just whinging.
Real football is not everyone’s cup of tea. Those people who prefer the refined emotions of say a ballet as opposed to the tango will probably stick to soccer or cricket. But real sports fans, who understand that it is about a contest between men, will want to tune in from tonight. And if there are any real men left watching soccer, they are welcome to join us.
The football season begins today. If that sentence has you checking your calendar, let me rephrase: The football, not soccer, season begins today. This statement will no doubt anger fans of the “beautiful game”. Big deal.
The worst soccer fans can muster are Millwall supporters, whose slogan “everyone hates us, and we don’t care” is also shared with snivelling adolescents. They pale in comparison to fans of the Oakland Raiders to whom Hunter S Thompson referred to as “beyond doubt the sleaziest and rudest and most sinister mob of thugs and wackos ever assembled” – and this from a man who once counted among his bosom buddies members of the Hells Angels.
Or perhaps they can once again rouse Will Batchelor to defend soccer. His sports column in The National this week said football was one part professional wrestling and two parts all-you-can-eat buffet, less sport than drama involving men in tight pants. He is not alone in harbouring such delusions.
Most soccer fans regard their North American cousins with disdain. To these woefully uninformed residents of the ward for the terminally ignorant, football is a sport for soft, flabby men who need time to catch their breath between downs, frequent commercial interruptions for loo breaks and medieval levels of body armour to avoid injury.
I dare them to tell that to a 130kg defensive end, a mountain of muscle with the speed and agility of Usain Bolt. Your average quarterback needs that padding just to survive the first down, and that defensive end needs it to keep himself from breaking his neck when he hits his target with all the kinetic energy of a runaway freight train.
Granted, rugby players do not wear padding, but hop on youtube and watch a rugby tackle, then go watch a quarterback get hit on his blindside. There is no comparison. If anything, removing the pads would make football less dangerous. When boxing introduced the padded glove, permanent head injuries became more common. Before gloves were introduced, punching someone in the jaw was just as likely to break your hand as his jaw. This made one think twice about where they were aiming. Now the average pugilist can hammer away at his opponent’s skull and suffer no ill effect.
But sometimes body armour is just called for. We do not deride the Yorkshire or Lancashire cavalry for wearing all that armour during the War of the Roses. The game of football is played by sumo wrestlers who can sprint, it is prudent to take precautions.
Soccer is indeed beautiful. The countless hours professional players devote towards honing their skills is revealed in the marvels of footwork and ball control on the pitch. Their endurance is unmatched in most team sports. But soccer is to football as fencing is to war. Some people prefer the former, others the latter.
Much of the hostility between soccer and football is over a shared name. This is the result of having a common ancestor, a game that is still played in the United Kingdom as the Royal Shrovetide Football match – a sport so brutal that the rules include: no killing.
Maybe Millwall should challenge the Raiders to a match and settle the debate once and for all, instead of just whinging.
Real football is not everyone’s cup of tea. Those people who prefer the refined emotions of say a ballet as opposed to the tango will probably stick to soccer or cricket. But real sports fans, who understand that it is about a contest between men, will want to tune in from tonight. And if there are any real men left watching soccer, they are welcome to join us.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
A plan lacking nothing but allies and Afghans
The following was first published in The National on September 2, 2009.
The Obama administration certainly can’t be accused of a less than thorough review of the war efforts in Afghanistan. The latest strategic assessment submitted by General Stanley McChrystal on Monday was merely the culmination of a comprehensive review of the situation in Afghanistan that began almost as soon as Barack Obama took office. It took the better part of a year, a long time when the United States is on the losing side of the conflict. Meanwhile popular support is decreasing in the US and among many of its European allies. Time may have been a luxury Mr Obama had in short supply, but he seems to have made good use of what little he had.
First there was the broadening of the scope of the conflict to include Pakistan, a notion that has come to be termed AfPak. It neatly encapsulates the reality that the conflict in Afghanistan is inseparable from the problem of militancy in Pakistan’s hinterlands. While the US and coalition allies may be forced to respect the borders of a close Nato ally, the Pashtuns who make up the overwhelming majority of the Taliban’s fighters do not. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan can be secured separately, so their problems must be tackled at the same time.
Mr Obama ordered a policy review of US efforts in Afghanistan ahead of the Nato conference in April. What resulted was a new, grand strategy for the war. No longer would the US and its allies measure its success by counting bodies, both American and Taliban. Instead, the focus would be on protecting the Afghans from the Taliban, speeding up a stagnant reconstruction effort and, most importantly, building the Afghan capacity for security and governance – a comprehensive approach dubbed counterinsurgency.
Gen McChrystal’s job was to figure out how to make Mr Obama’s vision actually work. Arguably, the greatest problem preventing success against the Taliban in Afghanistan is a lack of commitment. The overwhelming majority of fighting is being conducted by the US and a handful of other countries. While the US now has over 60,000 troops in the country, they are not enough. US commanders are already clamouring for reinforcements, but they will not be authorised by the US Congress without some assurance of progress. Nor are its allies likely to shoulder any greater portion of the combat burden.
But the war effort needs more than just a greater number of “trigger pullers”. Coalition countries such as France, Italy and Germany have never played much of a combat role in Afghanistan, yet together they have nearly 10,000 personnel in the country. They could be put to better use, particularly in the training of the Afghan security forces. The 42 nations that comprise the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (Isaf) must become more than a veneer of international co-operation in efforts to secure the country.
Presumably, this is what Gen McChrystal was referring to when he said that the war in Afghanistan needed “a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort”. As it is, both the combat and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly “Americanised”. This is not a sustainable trend. Nato countries in particular can’t shirk the burden. To do so would further undermine the already tenuous credibility of the organisation.
But despite the obvious necessity for coalition countries to shoulder a greater share of the responsibilities in Afghanistan, this is the real world. France and Germany may be major Nato partners, but their leaders answer first and foremost to their voters, not to the Nato secretary-general. Even the UK, the second largest contributor to Isaf, may not be in Afghanistan for much longer as popular support for the war has all but dissipated. Thus the need for a better economy of resources is all the more pressing. While a better use of the manpower on hand is needed, there is still a pressing need for more bodies to keep Afghanistan secure and to rebuild a country broken by three decades of conflict. The solution lies in the Afghans themselves.
The Afghan army is projected to grow from 93,000 to 134,000 in two years. By all possible measures this is a massive undertaking. There are also long term concerns about creating such a large military, which the coalition cannot sustain forever and the Afghan economy cannot support on its own. And as troubled as the army is, the police are in an even worse state. Often poorly equipped and underpaid, if they are paid at all, the Afghan police are often more hated than the Taliban. Without support from Kabul or its provincial representatives, many police have turned to banditry or bribes to support themselves.
The government in Kabul is increasingly becoming a hindrance to victory. While the US and its allies could feasibly win the fight against the Taliban, any success will be temporary so long as the central government remains rife with corruption, nepotism or even in complicity with the Taliban. David Kilcullen, a senior adviser to Nato generals, put it best, calling counterinsurgency “a competition for governance”. By almost every possible measure the US, its allies and Kabul are losing that competition. Many Afghans have turned to Taliban courts and police in areas that they control since they are considered more effective than what Kabul could produce.
After nearly a decade of combat and eight months of strategic review, the US has managed to assemble an effective strategy to secure and rebuild Afghanistan. It has the will and the leadership in place to execute that strategy. But ultimate success hangs on a corrupt and ineffective Afghan government that is, at best, uninterested in reforming its actions. Until this changes, success in Afghanistan is academic.
The Obama administration certainly can’t be accused of a less than thorough review of the war efforts in Afghanistan. The latest strategic assessment submitted by General Stanley McChrystal on Monday was merely the culmination of a comprehensive review of the situation in Afghanistan that began almost as soon as Barack Obama took office. It took the better part of a year, a long time when the United States is on the losing side of the conflict. Meanwhile popular support is decreasing in the US and among many of its European allies. Time may have been a luxury Mr Obama had in short supply, but he seems to have made good use of what little he had.
First there was the broadening of the scope of the conflict to include Pakistan, a notion that has come to be termed AfPak. It neatly encapsulates the reality that the conflict in Afghanistan is inseparable from the problem of militancy in Pakistan’s hinterlands. While the US and coalition allies may be forced to respect the borders of a close Nato ally, the Pashtuns who make up the overwhelming majority of the Taliban’s fighters do not. Neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan can be secured separately, so their problems must be tackled at the same time.
Mr Obama ordered a policy review of US efforts in Afghanistan ahead of the Nato conference in April. What resulted was a new, grand strategy for the war. No longer would the US and its allies measure its success by counting bodies, both American and Taliban. Instead, the focus would be on protecting the Afghans from the Taliban, speeding up a stagnant reconstruction effort and, most importantly, building the Afghan capacity for security and governance – a comprehensive approach dubbed counterinsurgency.
Gen McChrystal’s job was to figure out how to make Mr Obama’s vision actually work. Arguably, the greatest problem preventing success against the Taliban in Afghanistan is a lack of commitment. The overwhelming majority of fighting is being conducted by the US and a handful of other countries. While the US now has over 60,000 troops in the country, they are not enough. US commanders are already clamouring for reinforcements, but they will not be authorised by the US Congress without some assurance of progress. Nor are its allies likely to shoulder any greater portion of the combat burden.
But the war effort needs more than just a greater number of “trigger pullers”. Coalition countries such as France, Italy and Germany have never played much of a combat role in Afghanistan, yet together they have nearly 10,000 personnel in the country. They could be put to better use, particularly in the training of the Afghan security forces. The 42 nations that comprise the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan (Isaf) must become more than a veneer of international co-operation in efforts to secure the country.
Presumably, this is what Gen McChrystal was referring to when he said that the war in Afghanistan needed “a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort”. As it is, both the combat and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly “Americanised”. This is not a sustainable trend. Nato countries in particular can’t shirk the burden. To do so would further undermine the already tenuous credibility of the organisation.
But despite the obvious necessity for coalition countries to shoulder a greater share of the responsibilities in Afghanistan, this is the real world. France and Germany may be major Nato partners, but their leaders answer first and foremost to their voters, not to the Nato secretary-general. Even the UK, the second largest contributor to Isaf, may not be in Afghanistan for much longer as popular support for the war has all but dissipated. Thus the need for a better economy of resources is all the more pressing. While a better use of the manpower on hand is needed, there is still a pressing need for more bodies to keep Afghanistan secure and to rebuild a country broken by three decades of conflict. The solution lies in the Afghans themselves.
The Afghan army is projected to grow from 93,000 to 134,000 in two years. By all possible measures this is a massive undertaking. There are also long term concerns about creating such a large military, which the coalition cannot sustain forever and the Afghan economy cannot support on its own. And as troubled as the army is, the police are in an even worse state. Often poorly equipped and underpaid, if they are paid at all, the Afghan police are often more hated than the Taliban. Without support from Kabul or its provincial representatives, many police have turned to banditry or bribes to support themselves.
The government in Kabul is increasingly becoming a hindrance to victory. While the US and its allies could feasibly win the fight against the Taliban, any success will be temporary so long as the central government remains rife with corruption, nepotism or even in complicity with the Taliban. David Kilcullen, a senior adviser to Nato generals, put it best, calling counterinsurgency “a competition for governance”. By almost every possible measure the US, its allies and Kabul are losing that competition. Many Afghans have turned to Taliban courts and police in areas that they control since they are considered more effective than what Kabul could produce.
After nearly a decade of combat and eight months of strategic review, the US has managed to assemble an effective strategy to secure and rebuild Afghanistan. It has the will and the leadership in place to execute that strategy. But ultimate success hangs on a corrupt and ineffective Afghan government that is, at best, uninterested in reforming its actions. Until this changes, success in Afghanistan is academic.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
War, death, destruction? It must be America’s fault …
The following was first published in The National on 18 August 2009.
As a US citizen travelling and living abroad, one grows accustomed to being treated with dislike, distaste, disdain or some combination of the three. To many, we are uncouth, arrogant warmongers who trample through the world oblivious to the pain and suffering we leave in our wake. Partly, these feelings are born of disappointment: America, many feel, has failed to live up to its promise. The great democratic experiment, the beacon of human rights and free speech to the world, is a big, fat hypocrite.
Even if we examine only recent events, the litany of grievances is long. The US condemns human rights violations throughout the world, but we apparently ignore 60 years of Palestinian suffering. We tout the virtues of democracy, but prop up dictators and autocrats. We condemn the actions of groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and other so-called non-state actors, but forget that their existence is due in part to our own military primacy. And although religious freedom is enshrined in our constitution, we harbour prejudices towards Muslims, labelling them terrorists. And, worst of all, we are too ignorant even to realise the wrongs our nation is inflicting on the world.
True, Americans, by and large, know little of the world beyond our own borders. It is a function of our national wealth and our geography. We fail to grasp the implications of detaining an international movie star such as Shahrukh Khan because no one in introverted America knew who he was. And this drives the rest of the world mad.
Like Marie Antoinette, the average American stays locked in a palace solving the world’s problems with cake. But it’s hard to hate a Marie Antoinette who doesn’t know any better, which is why Americans hear the oft-repeated line from new acquaintances abroad: “I love Americans, but hate America.”
I heard this over and over when I went to a friend’s wedding in Pakistan, a country that nurtures an especially deep-seated dislike for the United States. It’s not hard to see why.
The war in Afghanistan has spilled over violently into Pakistan. Until his recent death, the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud waged a bitter war to unseat the Pakistani government with an army of religious zealots and thousands of kilos of high explosives. Faced with this threat, the only help Islamabad got was a scolding from Washington that it needed to do more to stop him.
Naturally, most Americans would feel that criticisms of their country are unjustified, even ungrateful. The United States Agency for International Development alone has a budget of $20 billion and a mandate to solve the world’s problems.
Even in this age of globalisation, most Americans are isolationist by nature. We would prefer to leave the world to its own devices. At the same time, we look upon the Old World with condescending pity, and feel the weight of our national good fortune. Thus we are easily aroused when called to right the world’s injustices. If the US were a person, it would be a teenager with a trust fund: opinionated but woefully ignorant, well-meaning but gratingly condescending, generous but with a sense of entitlement that ruins the sentiment.
While some of the criticisms of the US are valid, at worst it is only partly to blame. Yes, the absence of an effective post-invasion strategy in Afghanistan allowed a resurgence of the Taliban. Yes, a lack of understanding in Washington of the intricacies of tribal politics means they often fail to navigate through complex inter-relationships with the necessary nuance and subtlety.
But while Pakistan did not create the Taliban, and arguably neither did the US, it certainly did little to solve the problem. Its misguided military policies foster groups such as the Taliban for use as potential irregular forces against its enemies.
The Pakistani government’s neglect of the country’s largely ungoverned hinterlands has created a no-man’s land where extremist organisations can hide and recruit from a disenfranchised population. Yet the country is so blindly nationalistic in its policy-making, it even went so far as to quietly support the Taliban under Pervez Musharraf because it viewed Indian involvement in Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts as an assault on Pakistan’s western borders.
Of course, it’s hard to argue this when you’re in Islamabad, especially when the person you’re arguing with is feeding you: that’s not cowardice, just good manners.
Much of the blame the US received, deserved and otherwise, is a result of being the only superpower left after the dust settled on the Cold War. As the US president Harry Truman famously said: “The buck stops here.”
Other countries may decry US attempts to police the world, but who else is going to do it? No one else can, and the alternative is to revert to a time when countries settled their issues on the battlefield. The wars of today are not existential clashes between global behemoths. Rather they are small wars, with small casualties.
Undoubtedly America has committed many wrongs in its brief history, but it has also changed the course of history. If you are going to blame America for foisting democratic values on others and trampling over cultural sensibilities, you must also give it credit for putting human rights and free speech on the global agenda.
This is all a matter of perception and image as much as reality. America invented the modern public relations industry. Maybe now is a good time to put it to use.
As a US citizen travelling and living abroad, one grows accustomed to being treated with dislike, distaste, disdain or some combination of the three. To many, we are uncouth, arrogant warmongers who trample through the world oblivious to the pain and suffering we leave in our wake. Partly, these feelings are born of disappointment: America, many feel, has failed to live up to its promise. The great democratic experiment, the beacon of human rights and free speech to the world, is a big, fat hypocrite.
Even if we examine only recent events, the litany of grievances is long. The US condemns human rights violations throughout the world, but we apparently ignore 60 years of Palestinian suffering. We tout the virtues of democracy, but prop up dictators and autocrats. We condemn the actions of groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, the Taliban and other so-called non-state actors, but forget that their existence is due in part to our own military primacy. And although religious freedom is enshrined in our constitution, we harbour prejudices towards Muslims, labelling them terrorists. And, worst of all, we are too ignorant even to realise the wrongs our nation is inflicting on the world.
True, Americans, by and large, know little of the world beyond our own borders. It is a function of our national wealth and our geography. We fail to grasp the implications of detaining an international movie star such as Shahrukh Khan because no one in introverted America knew who he was. And this drives the rest of the world mad.
Like Marie Antoinette, the average American stays locked in a palace solving the world’s problems with cake. But it’s hard to hate a Marie Antoinette who doesn’t know any better, which is why Americans hear the oft-repeated line from new acquaintances abroad: “I love Americans, but hate America.”
I heard this over and over when I went to a friend’s wedding in Pakistan, a country that nurtures an especially deep-seated dislike for the United States. It’s not hard to see why.
The war in Afghanistan has spilled over violently into Pakistan. Until his recent death, the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud waged a bitter war to unseat the Pakistani government with an army of religious zealots and thousands of kilos of high explosives. Faced with this threat, the only help Islamabad got was a scolding from Washington that it needed to do more to stop him.
Naturally, most Americans would feel that criticisms of their country are unjustified, even ungrateful. The United States Agency for International Development alone has a budget of $20 billion and a mandate to solve the world’s problems.
Even in this age of globalisation, most Americans are isolationist by nature. We would prefer to leave the world to its own devices. At the same time, we look upon the Old World with condescending pity, and feel the weight of our national good fortune. Thus we are easily aroused when called to right the world’s injustices. If the US were a person, it would be a teenager with a trust fund: opinionated but woefully ignorant, well-meaning but gratingly condescending, generous but with a sense of entitlement that ruins the sentiment.
While some of the criticisms of the US are valid, at worst it is only partly to blame. Yes, the absence of an effective post-invasion strategy in Afghanistan allowed a resurgence of the Taliban. Yes, a lack of understanding in Washington of the intricacies of tribal politics means they often fail to navigate through complex inter-relationships with the necessary nuance and subtlety.
But while Pakistan did not create the Taliban, and arguably neither did the US, it certainly did little to solve the problem. Its misguided military policies foster groups such as the Taliban for use as potential irregular forces against its enemies.
The Pakistani government’s neglect of the country’s largely ungoverned hinterlands has created a no-man’s land where extremist organisations can hide and recruit from a disenfranchised population. Yet the country is so blindly nationalistic in its policy-making, it even went so far as to quietly support the Taliban under Pervez Musharraf because it viewed Indian involvement in Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts as an assault on Pakistan’s western borders.
Of course, it’s hard to argue this when you’re in Islamabad, especially when the person you’re arguing with is feeding you: that’s not cowardice, just good manners.
Much of the blame the US received, deserved and otherwise, is a result of being the only superpower left after the dust settled on the Cold War. As the US president Harry Truman famously said: “The buck stops here.”
Other countries may decry US attempts to police the world, but who else is going to do it? No one else can, and the alternative is to revert to a time when countries settled their issues on the battlefield. The wars of today are not existential clashes between global behemoths. Rather they are small wars, with small casualties.
Undoubtedly America has committed many wrongs in its brief history, but it has also changed the course of history. If you are going to blame America for foisting democratic values on others and trampling over cultural sensibilities, you must also give it credit for putting human rights and free speech on the global agenda.
This is all a matter of perception and image as much as reality. America invented the modern public relations industry. Maybe now is a good time to put it to use.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Hillary's message to India: welcome to the world stage
The following was first published in The National on July 21, 2009.
A cynic might say that Hillary Clinton’s visit to India this week is about money, and in part it is. India is a potential market worth billions of dollars in trade, especially in nuclear technology and arms sales: the secretary of state’s whirlwind tour paves the way for American companies to bid for their share.
And with the Russians and the French already having signed agreements to build nuclear power plants in India, the White House desperately needed one of its own or faced a backlash in Congress.
But Mrs Clinton’s trip was about much more than that. It is the latest stage in efforts begun under the Bush administration to ensure that India plays a more responsible role in the international community.
The civilian nuclear co-operation deal signed by India and the US at the end of last year was aimed at bringing India into the nuclear fold without requiring it to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It forced the separation of the civilian and military aspects of India’s programme, formalised the previously voluntary ban on nuclear weapons tests, provided assurances that nuclear fuel imports would not be used in weapons construction and allowed for UN inspections of civilian nuclear facilities.
These are all good things. But if the US had lost out on lucrative construction contracts and the jobs that come with them, then the nuclear energy deal would have been a liability rather than a benefit for the Obama administration, especially in the current economic downturn.
The potential benefit for US companies is considerable: India plans to increase the amount of energy it generates from nuclear power from 4,020MW to 52,000MW by 2020. The US will build at least two of the new reactors required.
In addition, the two countries have signed an end-use monitoring agreement designed to ensure that no country can misuse, transfer or sell US armaments or technology. This will help the American aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who in the absence of such an agreement have been prevented from selling advanced fighter aircraft to India.
Critics of this Indo-American rapprochement argue that India should not be rewarded for its refusal to sign the NPT; that the nuclear co-operation deal provides insufficient safeguards to prevent growth in India’s nuclear weapons stockpile because it can still use domestic sources of uranium to make weapons; that it sets a dangerous precedent for other non-signatories such as Israel and Pakistan; and that because inspectors have no access to India’s military nuclear facilities there is too little assurance that it will not misuse American technology.
With India’s rights to reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods yet to be negotiated, this last issue in particular remains thorny. But while some of the criticisms are valid, the nuclear co-operation deal was probably the best the world could obtain from India, and its record of voluntary participation in non-proliferation efforts should allay most of the concerns.
Inside India, meanwhile, domestic critics have cautioned that the country is making dangerous concessions on its national sovereignty. Barriers to imports of nuclear fuel and technology imposed after the nuclear weapons test in 1974 forced India to develop its own expertise in enrichment and reactor construction. The critics argue that bringing in foreign expertise provides only a short-term benefit, while placing potential limitations on India’s capability to maintain a nuclear deterrent against Pakistan and, more important, China.
There are also concerns that renewed nuclear imports and arms sales could be used as leverage to mould India’s foreign policy from Washington, especially in the dispute over Kashmir.
But these domestic critics are both wrong and short-sighted. India has more than enough uranium reserves to maintain a nuclear weapons programme, but not to build an effective civilian energy one. International sanctions on uranium imports mean that the cost of running nuclear reactors is significantly higher than if India had signed the NPT, so nuclear energy would be neither affordable nor widespread without this co-operation agreement. Nor is the US seeking to force India’s hand on the issue of India-Pakistan relations. If anything, Mrs Clinton took great pains to state that these deals were entirely separate from US concerns on that issue.
India’s implicit accession into the nuclear weapons club is yet another sign that its global clout is increasing in pace with its impressive economic growth. Yet too often it has failed to take its rightful place in the international community. Indeed, on issues as diverse as climate change and regional security, India has been a hindrance to progress almost as often as it has been a help.
The country continues to oppose carbon emissions caps; it exports a significant portion of the 136,000 barrels of gasoline Iran needs to keep its economy moving, drastically reducing the effectiveness of international sanctions; the simmering conflict with Pakistan divides Islamabad’s attention between its eastern and western borders when it should be wholly devoted to tackling the growing insurgency problem along the Durand Line; and India’s refusal to sign the NPT hampers efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons, despite its record of relatively responsible use of nuclear technology.
But efforts to punish India for its assertions of national sovereignty have been fruitless. Despite sanctions, India has harnessed the power of the atom, and no high-minded ideals will turn back the clock on its nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, it is an economic dynamo that has overcome many adversities to emerge as one of the most promising developing nations.
In the end, India will be persuaded to participate more responsibly in world affairs with the carrot of encouragement, not the stick of punishment.
A cynic might say that Hillary Clinton’s visit to India this week is about money, and in part it is. India is a potential market worth billions of dollars in trade, especially in nuclear technology and arms sales: the secretary of state’s whirlwind tour paves the way for American companies to bid for their share.
And with the Russians and the French already having signed agreements to build nuclear power plants in India, the White House desperately needed one of its own or faced a backlash in Congress.
But Mrs Clinton’s trip was about much more than that. It is the latest stage in efforts begun under the Bush administration to ensure that India plays a more responsible role in the international community.
The civilian nuclear co-operation deal signed by India and the US at the end of last year was aimed at bringing India into the nuclear fold without requiring it to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It forced the separation of the civilian and military aspects of India’s programme, formalised the previously voluntary ban on nuclear weapons tests, provided assurances that nuclear fuel imports would not be used in weapons construction and allowed for UN inspections of civilian nuclear facilities.
These are all good things. But if the US had lost out on lucrative construction contracts and the jobs that come with them, then the nuclear energy deal would have been a liability rather than a benefit for the Obama administration, especially in the current economic downturn.
The potential benefit for US companies is considerable: India plans to increase the amount of energy it generates from nuclear power from 4,020MW to 52,000MW by 2020. The US will build at least two of the new reactors required.
In addition, the two countries have signed an end-use monitoring agreement designed to ensure that no country can misuse, transfer or sell US armaments or technology. This will help the American aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who in the absence of such an agreement have been prevented from selling advanced fighter aircraft to India.
Critics of this Indo-American rapprochement argue that India should not be rewarded for its refusal to sign the NPT; that the nuclear co-operation deal provides insufficient safeguards to prevent growth in India’s nuclear weapons stockpile because it can still use domestic sources of uranium to make weapons; that it sets a dangerous precedent for other non-signatories such as Israel and Pakistan; and that because inspectors have no access to India’s military nuclear facilities there is too little assurance that it will not misuse American technology.
With India’s rights to reprocess spent nuclear fuel rods yet to be negotiated, this last issue in particular remains thorny. But while some of the criticisms are valid, the nuclear co-operation deal was probably the best the world could obtain from India, and its record of voluntary participation in non-proliferation efforts should allay most of the concerns.
Inside India, meanwhile, domestic critics have cautioned that the country is making dangerous concessions on its national sovereignty. Barriers to imports of nuclear fuel and technology imposed after the nuclear weapons test in 1974 forced India to develop its own expertise in enrichment and reactor construction. The critics argue that bringing in foreign expertise provides only a short-term benefit, while placing potential limitations on India’s capability to maintain a nuclear deterrent against Pakistan and, more important, China.
There are also concerns that renewed nuclear imports and arms sales could be used as leverage to mould India’s foreign policy from Washington, especially in the dispute over Kashmir.
But these domestic critics are both wrong and short-sighted. India has more than enough uranium reserves to maintain a nuclear weapons programme, but not to build an effective civilian energy one. International sanctions on uranium imports mean that the cost of running nuclear reactors is significantly higher than if India had signed the NPT, so nuclear energy would be neither affordable nor widespread without this co-operation agreement. Nor is the US seeking to force India’s hand on the issue of India-Pakistan relations. If anything, Mrs Clinton took great pains to state that these deals were entirely separate from US concerns on that issue.
India’s implicit accession into the nuclear weapons club is yet another sign that its global clout is increasing in pace with its impressive economic growth. Yet too often it has failed to take its rightful place in the international community. Indeed, on issues as diverse as climate change and regional security, India has been a hindrance to progress almost as often as it has been a help.
The country continues to oppose carbon emissions caps; it exports a significant portion of the 136,000 barrels of gasoline Iran needs to keep its economy moving, drastically reducing the effectiveness of international sanctions; the simmering conflict with Pakistan divides Islamabad’s attention between its eastern and western borders when it should be wholly devoted to tackling the growing insurgency problem along the Durand Line; and India’s refusal to sign the NPT hampers efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons, despite its record of relatively responsible use of nuclear technology.
But efforts to punish India for its assertions of national sovereignty have been fruitless. Despite sanctions, India has harnessed the power of the atom, and no high-minded ideals will turn back the clock on its nuclear capabilities. Furthermore, it is an economic dynamo that has overcome many adversities to emerge as one of the most promising developing nations.
In the end, India will be persuaded to participate more responsibly in world affairs with the carrot of encouragement, not the stick of punishment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
