Obama, Al Qaida, and (the War on) terror.

This writer doesn't know Obama. I guess some people have not been made aware that the war on terror doesn't exist any more.





Ayoon Wa Azan (The War Is Necessary To Defeat al-Qaeda)


Fri, 27 November 2009
Jihad el-Khazen
dar al hayat



There is a consensus in the American media that President Barack Obama will announce a surge of 30 thousand U.S soldiers to be deployed in Afghanistan, in the speech that he will deliver next week at the West Point military academy, and which will be the first of many speeches and meetings aimed at rallying support for this surge.


Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S military commander in Afghanistan, requested 40 thousand additional troops; however, I read no news items that thought it likely that the surge will involve this figure, and perhaps what had transpired then was sort of a bazaar: it seems that the commander requested more than he actually needs, since he knows that the administration will not agree to his request as it is, and that it will reduce the figure to the number of soldiers that he does indeed need. In all cases, I express my reservation about any figures and will wait instead for the President’s speech.

What we know so far is that President Obama promised that he will finish the mission in Afghanistan, which is an expression that is open to all possible interpretations, whether in continuing the goals of the Bush administration that started this war, or in focusing the war on al-Qaeda alone, as requested by the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as it was al-Qaeda alone that was behind the terrorist attacks of 11/9/2001. This is in addition to the possibility that the president has found a way to gradually withdraw from Afghanistan, which is what he pledged during his election campaign; as such, the aim behind deploying more troops is to accelerate arriving at the conditions which will allow for faster withdrawal.

Meanwhile, President Obama will face a political battle as harsh as the one involving his healthcare plan. This is because the senior officials in the Democratic Party, his party, are opposed to a surge in Afghanistan, while the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that approving this surge is a very difficult legislative task to ask of her group in the Congress. In fact, Pelosi pushed the Congress to approve a one billion dollar measure to meet the cost of the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan. She is thus aware that the Democratic Party would oppose an increase in these costs given the ongoing financial crisis, and is also aware of the danger of raising taxes, an unpopular choice among the voters.

The cost of deploying each U.S soldiers in the theatre of war amounts to one million dollars annually. This is while the government is suffering under the burden of trillion dollar debts, and I read that the interests paid on these debts amount to approximately 600 billion dollars per year, while unemployment has soared to 10.2 percent, and it does not appear that it will significantly decline in the upcoming few months.

Barack Obama is aware of all these and other issues. However, he also realizes that withdrawing from Afghanistan before establishing a government that is able to rule there, and before clearly defeating al-Qaeda will only mean encouraging the terrorists everywhere to challenge the United States.

Personally, I wish that the American forces would focus their war effort against al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization that killed a larger number of Muslims than of those who perished in the terrorist attacks of 11/9/2001, which also means that it is the duty of Muslims before others to fight al-Qaeda and its ideology, and to help the American efforts.

However, the Muslim role against al-Qaeda remains limited and President Obama wants the Western Coalition to contribute more in the war. He specifically asked the NATO member countries to send ten thousand additional troops in conjunction with the American surge. However, I read that the allies did not promise more than five thousand soldiers, and that Canada and the Netherlands are planning to withdraw their existing troops in Afghanistan.

Barack Obama had a streak of good luck, which was at times almost surreal, and which put him in the White House. However, it seems that he has depleted this good luck, as the Bush administration left him with a heavy legacy, including the financial crisis, the bankruptcy of the treasury and the failed wars. In fact, the war on terror only increased terror around the world, which prompted the United States in the end to stop using this term.

President Obama, along with the Democratic Party, is faced with the midterm elections next year, in November. He is aware that there is a simple majority in the U.S that is opposed to the war, and that an even larger majority, or 69 percent, consider that the war is going badly. This means that the Democrats who control both houses of Congress will now pay the price for George W. Bush’s adventures and ignorance, and for the free pass he gave to the neo-conservatives to run the country’s policies behind his back.

We now hear that Afghanistan is “Obama’s Vietnam”. However, the war is necessary in order to defeat al-Qaeda; for this reason, I do not expect to see the Americans fleeing in airplanes from on top of their embassy in Kabul.











Obama