The US, not winning in Iraq and losing in Afghanistan

Without an all-encompassing strategy, throwing more troops at the Afghanistan problem will not serve as a means to an end, but a way to become sucked into a quagmire. Presidential elections and new tactics in Afghanistan will help to break the stalemate that NATO commanders have long expressed was undermining their mission.

It will also allow NATO forces to maintain gains, by handing “cleared” zones to capable and dependable, local Afghan security forces. The climate of fear and the strained local security apparatus, often has resulted in cleared areas been redeployed all too quickly by Taliban forces.

Reaching out to the people to garner support is only one part of Obama’s new strategy across the Middle East.

Frantic diplomacy drive

Since his highly-publicised inauguration, Obama has wasted no time in getting to work on his foreign policy vision.

Only recently a frantic two-day American diplomatic drive included overtures to Russia, where ties were very much strained in 2008 over the Russian invasion of Georgia and contentious plans for a US missile defence system in Eastern Europe, and also Iran, where a communication channel is acutely craved by the US administration, in addition to a general reach out to Muslim countries in the region.

In the not so distant future, Obama is set to visit Turkey to give a first speech in a Muslim country.

Overtures to Iran, Syria, Russia and moderate elements of the Taliban have turned a few heads. The need to open unconditional diplomatic channels to Tehran has long been mentioned by Obama, but only if Iran could “unclench” its fist. However, at a time when there are wide reports that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon, it makes US advances towards Iran all the more contentious.

It is evident that for US foreign policy to succeed in the larger context, concessions will be vital if not a prerequisite for regional foreign policy healing. Diplomatic initiatives towards Iran may eventually see it swayed from its nuclear programs, leading to a lifting of international sanctions on Iran, in return for more “productive” Iranian support in Iraq and Afghanistan - where Iran could play a more supportive part in the battle against the Taliban and the promotion of national unity. Russians could be swayed by the abandonment of the missile system defence plans in Europe, if Russians can sufficiently convince their Iranian counterparts to steer clear from nuclear ambitions.

Effectively manoeuvring regional ties, by resetting relations with the Russians, as widely publicised at the recent meeting between both countries, and breaking the stalemate with other long-time adversaries, may then contribute in turn towards advancing other US goals, such as stability in Afghanistan and winning the battle against extremism.

Americans can longer afford to lose the wars that they are currently fighting with such sacrifice and which, simultaneously, drive a wedge between historic foes and other contentious regional powers.

The new US drive was best summed up by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, emphasising their immense effort to create more partners and less adversaries.

With the globe becoming ever smaller and more intrinsically linked, the time for unilateralism is certainly over.