Geo-Political Changes
During the 19th century geo-political changes were to be expected every 50 years or so, during the 20th century it came down to about 25 years. With technology racing forward in making the world a global village, this period is now down to a 5-10 years period. Events of the past year, viz (1) the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan (2) North Korean nuclear blast (3) Iran’s uranium enrichment process (4) The Darfur crisis (5) the Somalia problem etc are indications that US ability to influence events as the sole Superpower in the world has diminished from what it was 5 years ago. Elections to the US Congress reflected the frustrations of the US electorate at shortcomings of the Bush Administration foreign policy. With neo-cons wielding absolute power in the US after January 2001, 9/11 gave a powerful excuse to pursue a narrow parochial agenda, with scant regard to any dissent, both within and outside the US. After the geo-political changes because of one september morning of horror, the world is now ready for another course correction. The question remains as to which quagmire the US must get out from and which one to concentrate on.
The bi-partisan James Baker III-led “Iraq Study Group”, will come up with its findings in the next 2-3 weeks. One need not be clairvoyant to surmise what they will recommend, a phased and graceful exit from Iraq. While no schedule will be recommended, it is difficult to see US troops in strength post mid-2008. Republican-strategist Baker is a wily fox, a Bush-Loyalist (he served Bush Sr as Secretary of State) he has been brought out of the closet to pull Junior’s (President George W. Bush, Jr) Presidential chestnuts out of the fire. Will Baker be able to convince the Democrats go along with the Study Group recommendations? An initial increase in troop levels may take place as per Senator John McCain’s advice, to stop the strife (particularly within Baghdad) degenerating into a full-fledged civil war. A gradual handing-over of responsibility to Iraqi forces would still require a covering force of possibly four fully integrated Brigade Groups, two in Baghdad, one each in Ramada and Tikrit areas with adequate Air Force and Aviation Units as well as a strong training support group, about 50000 troops at maximum strength, stabilising eventually to around 25-30000 for the long haul. Two days before he was shunted out, even Rumsfeld was Born-Again to this idea. If the fighting worsens, there may be a strong move to pull the US and coalition forces out of harm’s way in a hurry, and damn the consequences.
US involvement in Afghanistan has greater consensus among the domestic US population. The recent NATO Summit in Riga got some pledges for allied troops moving into combat situations, the French and German are still reluctant to enter combat. The British and Canadian troops are presently sharing causalities with the US, will the Dutch govt (and others) be able to withstand domestic public dissent if the numbers of their dead and wounded mount? The policy initiative in Afghanistan should go the FATA way, talk more and fight less.
Iran is the linchpin for Iraq. Notwithstanding a 180 degree course correction, indications are that the Bush Administration and Iran may be headed to some sort of an uneasy compromise. The US will continue to protest Iranian nuclear ambitions but may not vociferously pursue the UN sanctions route. In return Iran will attempt reining in Shia militants in Iraq, at least those over whom it has some influence. The situation is very complex, one scenario calls for dividing Iraq into what it has become de-facto, a Kurd area, a Shia area and a Sunni stronghold, with Baghdad divided along sectarian lines. A strong Shia bloc, Iran and a Shia Iraq (or a portion thereof) will be perceived as a potent threat by the Sunni-majority Arab States in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That apprehension has potential for disaster, could lead to a far wider conflagration, nobody (least of all the US) wants the Gulf area to become a theater of war.
The biggest blunder of all times was sending the existing Iraqi military and bureaucracy home carte-blanche instead of purging them of Saddam loyalists, the Iraqis would have done that dirty work themselves gladly, given the chance. Loyalties takes years to build up, the US sweepingly applies contractual conditions to relationships when infact one must give greater priority to human resource factors. Corporate processes tend to deal coldly in dollars and cents, loyalties can be bought, but only temporarily. Fidelity must be the prime factor when dealing with potential allies.
The Middle East has potentially three civil wars in the making, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Not since 1976 (and the start of the Lebanese Civil War) have the lines been drawn so clearly. Luckily the Lebanese people (and their leaders) are used to living with each other despite their deep dislike for each other. With both Israel and Syria out of the immediate equation, it is quite possible that they will work out a reasonable compromise even though political assassinations are testing their patience to the limit, more such provocations may be in the offing. One good thing about the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is that the contesting parties realize that costs in human and material damage on a pro-rata basis, an armed truce may be better than engaging in permanent conflict. The rise of Hezbollah’s Shaikh Nasrullah is worrying friend and foe alike, he has become the most popular leader in the Middle East, for Shia and Sunni alike! Is that why a new pragmatism is seen in Israeli policy towards Palestine e.g. the ceasefire in Gaza? Hopefully this will lead to substantive Israeli-Palestine negotiations. Even Hamas has shown a willingness to sit down and negotiate, it remains to be seen whether this does not full prey to deliberate provocations instigated by the vested, ie those interested in keeping the conflict going for their own narrow, selfish reasons. Irrespective as to what happens in Palestine, Israel will always be wary of Iran’s increasing nuclear potential. Will they be able to resist the temptation for a surgical aerial strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities?
With the Democrats now in control of both Houses of Congress, and President Bush clearly recognising the need for a substantive change in the go-it-alone and damn-the-consequences posture since 2001 policy to one recognizing the real-politik of the expected “Iraq Study Group” recommendations. While one cannot wholesale condemn all US policies as failed initiatives, the US should have been sensitive to fidelity and a real-politik, both of individuals, groups, and even States. At the end of the Afghan war, Pakistan found itself out in the cold in 1991, only being “re-discovered” as a “cornerstone of US policy in the region” when needed again in 2001.
Geo-political changes may cause Pakistan to feel some of the heat. We cannot avoid the march of democracy, that is something that we already seem to have to come to terms with. We have a host of opportunities to grasp and a bucketful of challenges to deal with, both can (and must) go hand-in-hand.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment