Obama's Afghan surge is neither right nor wise

The relative stability in Iraq is not just simply the result of the US surge in 2007. For instance, one reason for the advent of relative stability is that ethnic cleansing in Iraq came to a successful conclusion at that time and the Shiites basically won the Iraqi civil war. In Iraq the administration of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki enjoys a good measure of legitimacy with the majority Shiite population. The situation with Karzai is the exact opposite.

According to the chief of US military intelligence in Afghanistan al-Qaida has only about 100 fighters inside Afghanistan. The strategic relationship between the Taliban and al-Qaida is not as it was prior to 9-11. The Taliban does not need al-Qaida tactical, let alone strategic, assistance. Al-Qaida appears to be more like a terrorist movement than a centralised terrorist organisation.

Obama seems to be fighting yesterday's war.

Obama's AfPak strategy actually appears to be working at cross purposes, assuming that terrorism is indeed the number one priority. Currently Pakistan is engaged in an offensive in South Waziristan. The US would like Pakistan to expand this offensive into other border areas, engaging not just the Pakistani Taliban but also the Taliban proper, and for Islamabad to allow expanded US air attacks inside Pakistan, especially in Baluchistan. Pakistan fought an insurgency in Baluchistan in the 1970s.

All these actions threaten to further destabilise Pakistan. Indeed, it would appear that the current offensive is doing more to destabilise Pakistan than anything else. Despite the death of their leader the Pakistani Taliban have delivered on their promise to conduct terrorist attacks throughout Pakistan. In the western press their ability to do so was initially dismissed.

Pakistan is caught up in an escalating cycle of violence. Will further escalation by Islamabad and the US stabilise Pakistan? Bruce Riedel, who drew up Obama's March White Paper on AfPak, has argued that such actions will in fact destabilise Pakistan.

It's pretty clear that Pakistan will play an important role in the Obama strategy. But notice that the US is also helping to augment India's military power. The Bush-Singh nuclear deal, which will enable India to produce more fuel for nuclear weapons, is reaching culmination. Earlier this year Hillary Clinton signed an agreement with Delhi clearing the path for the sale of sophisticated conventional weaponry to India. This will enhance India's capability to wage large scale combined arms operations.

This means Pakistan will maintain a strategic interest in ensuring that Afghanistan gives it strategic depth, that Islamic militants continue to be used asymmetrically against Delhi and that the bulk of the Pakistan army remains focused on India and heavily engaged in domestic society.

This demonstrates that Obama does not have an integrated strategy for South Asia that puts priority on combating terrorism, even of the narrowly defined type. The Obama strategy in fact works at cross purposes. This suggests an hypothesis.

Perhaps Obama does have an integrated strategy, only combating terrorism isn't necessarily its essence. The former National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, dubbed Central Asia as "the Eurasian Balkans". He stated, "the Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant." They also, potentially, have an "enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves". The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which includes Russia and China, threatens to exclude the US from the region.

If energy security will be a critical structural issue underlying global security in the 21st century then surely the Eurasian Balkans will be a central arena for great power rivalry. Perhaps that is what is at issue and viewing AfPak in this way might give US strategy its integrated rational basis.

This is stated as a hypothesis, not a fact. But it's a reasonable one to draw. Or, perhaps, the Obama strategy is irrational. Either way, it has no moral basis. That's what counts.