KABUL — Afghans and Pakistanis on Wednesday greeted
President Barack Obama’s plan to send 30,000 to 35,000 troops to Afghanistan
with limited enthusiasm, skepticism that the U.S. has enough staying power to
defeat the Taliban-led insurgency, and even suspicion that the rapid surge will
be followed by a speedy exit.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, ostensibly the main
beneficiary of Obama’s plan, promised Wednesday that he’d “spare no
effort” to help Obama repel the insurgents, but it’s unclear whether he’ll
mount an equally strenuous campaign to root out corruption, as Obama demanded
in his Tuesday evening speech at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs made that demand more
explicit Wednesday, saying that Karzai and his government must “change
their behavior.”
“If President Karzai is unable or unwilling to make
changes in corruption or governance,” Gibbs said, “we will identify
people at a subcabinet level, at a district level that can implement the types
of services and basic governance without corruption that Afghans need.”
Obama warned Pakistan, which provides sanctuary to Taliban
and other insurgents who are attempting to overthrow Karzai’s government, that:
“We cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is
known.”
In both Pakistan and Afghanistan, however, experts said that
Obama’s warnings were undercut by the president’s talk of an 18-month timeline
for the surge of additional troops, which they said could encourage the Taliban
to wait out American forces and Karzai to cling to his corrupt warlord allies.
“This is the question,” said Ali Farhad, a
campaign aide to Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai’s leading political opponent.
“Can they take all the responsibility in two or three years? That’s the
question mark.”
“The timetable is very short,” said Mohammad Gulab
Mangal, the governor of Helmand province, one of the Afghan districts that’s
expected to see an influx of American soldiers. “But if they are serious
and this isn’t for show, then they can succeed.”
Administration officials are trying to reassure hesitant
allies that the president wants success, not just an exit from Afghanistan.
In Washington, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told skeptical
congressional leaders that it might be two years before the military can begin
scaling back in Afghanistan.
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of coalition
forces in Afghanistan, told reporters in Kabul that the president’s vow to
begin bringing American forces home in 18 months “is not an
absolute.”
“The 18-month timeline … as it will play out is not
an absolute,” McChrystal said. “It’s not an ’18 months, everybody
leaves.’ “
While some Afghan and Pakistani politicians worry that the
18-month schedule is too short, McChrystal said Afghanistan forces would fill
the void.
“To a degree, the insurgents cannot afford to leave the
battlefield while the government of Afghanistan expands its capacity, expands
its legitimacy, expands its control,” he said.
Pakistani analysts expressed surprise that Obama had signaled
plans for a withdrawal before the surge even begins. They said the U.S.
strategy asks Pakistan to risk endangering itself by attacking the Taliban
groups that are the likely victors following a U.S. departure from Afghanistan.
“We don’t have the capacity to do it, (to) go after
these (insurgent) ‘safe havens,’ ” said Simbal Khan, an analyst at
Institute of Strategic Studies, a government-funded policy organization in
Islamabad, Pakistan. “We can’t do it without seriously destabilizing
Pakistan in the process.”
The Pakistani foreign ministry said the government wants
“to ensure there was no adverse fallout on Pakistan,” a reference to
fears that the new U.S. forces would chase insurgents in Afghanistan into
Pakistan.
Analysts said that heeding Obama’s demands would require
opening a major conflict in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region, which is
thought to be the base of operations of the Haqqani network, perhaps the most
dangerous insurgent group operating in Afghanistan. Another likely target would
be Quetta, where Mullah Mohammed Omar and other Taliban leaders are thought to
be based.
Pakistani officials said the country’s armed forces are
already stretched thin dealing with the domestic insurgency. In the latest assault
Wednesday, suicide bombers hit the entrance to the country’s naval headquarters
in the capital of Islamabad, killing two guards.
In Iraq, meanwhile, where political wrangling has delayed
parliamentary elections, some politicians expressed unhappiness that the Afghan
surge would come at the expense of U.S. troop strength in Iraq.
“The U.S. has long decided to abandon Iraq and
concentrate its attention on Afghanistan,” said Salig Mutlag, a Sunni
Muslim lawmaker. “Now, all it wants is to wash its hands of all that the
occupation has caused in Iraq and go on to glory and projected successes
elsewhere.”
Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish parliament member,
said, “I think they (the Americans) can only concentrate on one war, not
two.”
“Obama himself has never believed in the war in
Iraq,” he said.
Vice President Joe Biden called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki before Obama’s speech to assure him that the enlarged U.S. commitment
to Afghanistan wouldn’t come at Iraq’s expense, the White House said.
There are still 115,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but Obama hopes
to remove all combat forces by next summer. Under a U.S.-Iraqi agreement, all
U.S. troops must be out of the country by the end of 2011.
U.S. officials now say that if Iraq reverts to sectarian
conflict, the U.S. is less likely to be helpful in future.
“It is true. Iraqis must take their affairs into their
own hands and learn to resolve their own issues,” said Mutlag, who heads
the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, a Sunni majority party.
“We had hoped that their withdrawal would be at least
responsible and ethical in that they would not leave behind them a security
vacuum that may be exploited by the enemies of Iraq,” he said. “But
that is occupation.”
Via McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
