Troika in the Tribal Triangle
Published 30 September, 2008, 15:32
Commenting on the first presidential debate, David E. Sangster of the New York Times said that ‘there was more than a little role reversal’ on policy on Pakistan and believed that Obama ‘seemed more aligned with President Bush’ with regard to authorising special ops inside Pakistan.
This might seem a breathtaking assertion but it’s really a grossly simplified and misleading interpretation of the situation.
Let’s take a closer look at the positions and views of Bush, Obama and McCain and see who’s really saying what.
A troika of politicians, Bush, Obama & McCain, each professes a different strategy in the war on terror in the Afghan-Pakistan-Iraq triangle.
There are two questions to be asked. First, is there any role reversal? And second, if there is, between whom?
When it comes to Senator McCain, the last thing he needs to do is to flip-flop and thereby repeat John Kerry’s blunder and commit political suicide by ‘more than a little role reversal’ in his views on U.S. policy in the region.
It’s true he’s toned down his war-mongering against Iran, but the pecking order of his priorities remains intact:
First, open-ended military commitment to Iraq – unless Osama bin Laden confesses in his next address that the central front against the U.S. is elsewhere.
Second, more of the same muddling through in Afghanistan, with a new twist – to replicate the tactics used in Iraq of bankrolling Sunni militia or tribal militants.
Third, the ostrich policy of tiptoeing and kowtowing, with appeasement towards Pakistan, much to the outrage of U.S. intelligence and special ops community.
This, in a nutshell, was the Bush doctrine.
Meanwhile, Senator Obama’s record on the subject has been pretty consistent, though with a different set of priorities – defined by strategic rather than ad hoc patchwork tactical considerations:
First, ‘realpolitik’ in Pakistan, with swift surgical search & destroy operations in the troubled tribal belt. (The underlying message is very simple: guys, you can’t treat the Uncle Sam as a sugar daddy and cheat on him at his own expense with your old buddies, the Taliban & Al-Qaeda. And please, stop crying about the sovereignty and democracy, it’s payback time!)
Second, robust engagement in Afghanistan, with an increase in tactical forces and reinvigorated efforts to tackle the runaway drug production and endemic corruption.
Third, zero in on an exit strategy from Iraq, which from the very outset has taken a heavy toll on U.S. blood and resources.
Conclusion: if both candidates have stuck to their guns in their respective versions of U.S. strategy in the war on terror, there’s been no role reversal between the two candidates.
Now let’s give credit where credit’s due.
In fact it was President Bush who in his lame-duck doldrums suddenly wised up and took the opportunity to ‘walk the walk’ leaving the two candidates to merely ‘talk the talk’.
On the sly and without debunking his own discredited doctrine, and under the cover of plausible deniability, he shifted gears towards Obama’s strategic approach to the tribal terror triangle.
So it was Bush who took up Obama’s strategy – not the other way round.
As for McCain, his deadbeat doctrine will remain the same – more pain and no gain, all over again.
Eugene Khrushchev, RT
To read the article in New York Times, follow the link.
