In offering the American people and the world his agenda for change - his new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan - President Obama reminds us that "al-Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks" - continue to be active in both nations. Using rhetoric reminiscent of the Bush administration, he warns us that al-Qaeda still seeks to kill "as many of our people as possible" and is "actively planning further attacks on the US homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan." The reason, therefore, that "our men and women still fight and die there" is to ensure our national security - the safety of the American people.

    President Obama makes clear that where the Bush administration went wrong was not in its recognition of the reality and the seriousness of the threat - the "greatest threat" to the American people - posed by al-Qaeda, but in becoming sidetracked by the war in Iraq and by being overly cautious, too conservative, and in not aggressively pursuing the "enemy that heeds no borders" into Pakistan. Obama's new strategy is intended to rectify the previous administration's missteps in foreign policy by implementing an aggressive and comprehensive multifaceted strategy that escalates our civilian and military effort in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. What needs to be determined, however, is whether the Obama strategy is truly change and whether it can be successful in bringing peace and stability to the region.

    The Civilian Component

    Presumably, under the Obama strategy, the civilian effort will be waged by NGOs and corporate contractors to include, among others, "agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers," whose function it will be to "help the Afghan government serve its people." Despite the reality of an economy on the verge of collapse, this aspect of Obama's strategy will include "$1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years." This expenditure, he believes, will "contribute directly to security" and "save us an enormous amount of money in the long run." President Obama recognizes the corruption and waste that have characterized corporate contracts in the past and promises oversight and "that the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end."

    However, despite this awareness, things have changed very little. KBR, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, and DynCorp International, despite clear abuses in the past, continue to "win" contracts to provide a broad range of logistic and support services to US and Allied forces during combat (LOGCAP $150 billion). Further, in a recent letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates makes clear that the use of private contractor security forces - mercenaries - in support of "the forward-operating bases in certain parts of the country," will continue under the Obama administration. Consequently, there is little in the way of change here as major corporations such as Halliburton, KBR, DynCorp, Blackwater (now renamed Xe), etc., remain integral players in Obama's new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The Military Component

    President Obama wants the American public to understand "that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan." Now this mission is complex and, upon analysis, includes several aspects that are troublesome. While it has been no secret that "covert" military operations have been going on in Pakistan (and elsewhere) for several years, Obama's "new strategy" acknowledges and accepts without discussion or debate that we are as much at war in Pakistan as we are in Afghanistan (maybe more so). One of the changes that many had hoped would be forthcoming in an Obama administration would be a return to the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution that requires that war be declared not by executive decree but by a vote of Congress.

    Another difficulty with this strategy is that since terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda lack formal structure and function as loosely affiliated groups and individuals who have diverse grievances with a common enemy, it is not at all clear what "mission accomplished" would look like. Even should we overlook this difficulty, there is no guarantee that all our troops will be withdrawn from the region once al-Qaeda has been defeated and disrupted. Obama mentions that it is integral to our mission not only to rid Afghanistan and Pakistan of al-Qaeda, but to ensure that it is prevented from returning to either country in the future. That requires, therefore, in President Obama's view, two important additional goals beyond defeating and disrupting al-Qaeda.

    * First, it entails the defeat of the Taliban whose leadership, Obama is certain, would provide sanctuary and support for al-Qaeda terrorists should they regain power. Obama is clear that the Taliban "must be met with force, and they must be defeated" and has noted that it will be the mission of the 17,000 troops already ordered to deploy to Afghanistan to "take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east ... and go after insurgents along the border." Here Obama is clearly establishing an additional combat mission for our troops and one intended primarily to destroy the Taliban, not al-Qaeda. The additional 4,000 troops he will deploy this spring, therefore, will not "shift the emphasis" away from these combat missions, but merely augment the mission, already underway, to train the Afghan military and police.

    * Second, Obama believes that preventing al-Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the future requires that their governments achieve the stability necessary to prevent a "slide back into chaos." This entails an elimination of corruption and the establishment of an effective and honest government which serves its people and supports the "basic human rights of all Afghans - including women and girls." Obama's strategy in the region, therefore, now entails a requirement for "nation building" - the creation of an honest, Western-style democratic government that respects the civil rights of all its citizens. Consequently, our mission in the region, in addition to nation building and destroying al-Qaeda and the Taliban, will also require that we defeat/eliminate the stridently independent and very conservative Pashtun tribesmen (the dominant ethic community in Afghanistan - totaling some forty million people in Pakistan and Afghanistan) who will fiercely resist the im

    position of a Western-style democracy.

    So here we have it, the Obama administration's strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A mission whose purpose and goals, upon analysis, are not as focused as he would have us believe. In reality, it is a truly bold and challenging mission, especially with an economy bordering on collapse and a military depleted and in disarray from fighting a multifront campaign for more than seven years.

    Perhaps there is some room for hope for change, however. What is different under this new administration is not its identification of the "enemy," or its use of the rhetoric of fear to characterize the threat as grave and immanent, or its propensity to wage war around the world, but in its flexibility and expressed willingness to make changes where necessary. Obama does indicate that he "will not blindly stay the course ... and review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress toward accomplishing our goals" (italics mine). Upon analysis, however, this language is not encouraging, as what is implied here is only that should progress not be forthcoming, he will be prepared to reevaluate and make appropriate tactical (tool) changes. There is no indication, however, should "benchmarks" not be achieved or progress made, that we will admit that the effort, though noble, is impossible or beyond what we are willing/able to endure/pay in lives and treasu

    re. Obama does not mention the possibility of withdrawing our troops and equipment and just going home.

    In light of President Obama's recognition and acceptance that "the road ahead will be long" and difficult, the following questions remain to be answered. Just how long will we endure failure, should we not be successful? With our economy in crisis, just how much treasure are we prepared to squander in pursuit of our goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Just how many lives are we prepared to sacrifice? Though I hope I am wrong, given the history of unrest and resistance in Afghanistan and the complexity of the problems, I fear that our efforts, like those of the Soviet Union and the British will ultimately prove unsuccessful and that President Obama, finding himself embroiled in an unwinnable war, with too much invested in treasure, lives and reputation to just pick up and walk away, will share the fate of another liberal Democratic president whose dreams for a "Great Society" had to be abandoned because of his decisions to become involved in quagmire.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.