The Pakistani Spectator

Already there have been reports indicating that the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), perpetrator of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, has superseded al Qaeda in the global threat stakes. Indeed, a recent Newsweek report referred to the LeT as “potentially the most dangerous outfit on the planet”

The top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan vowed this week that there would soon be good news coming out of that country, stressing that this summer’s planned battle for Kandahar would result in a Taliban defeat at the hands of the international and Afghan forces.

His confidence apparently comes in the wake of the thus far seemingly successful Operation Moshtarak — the ongoing military offensive launched last month to take control of Marjah, a town known as the so-called spiritual stronghold of the Taliban.

For the White House, such news is timely. For one thing, Congress was expected on Wednesday to debate the Kucinich resolution (at the time of writing, the debate had yet to begin), demanding that Washington pull out all its forces from Afghanistan. In the unlikely event of its passing, this could mean the return of US troops within 30 days. Then there is also the small matter of awaiting the congressional decision on a $ 33 billion package for Afghanistan, required to fund the promised 30,000-strong troop surge. This is to say nothing of the demands for an additional $ 159 billion for both Afghanistan and Iraq, sought as part of the proposed military budget. And then, of course, next week will see nationwide protests against the presence of US troops in both those war-torn countries.

But can we really dare hope that this promise of a military victory in Afghanistan could be anything more than mere spin?

Of course, a positive turning of the tide on this front would certainly bring closer to reality Washington’s timetabled troop withdrawal, set for mid-2011, and the long process of rebuilding the Afghan nation as an independent entity free from occupation.

However, optimistic projection is one thing while concrete strategy remains quite another. And it appears that the Obama presidency is alarmingly missing the latter, preferring to simply wing it.

According to the UN, 2009 represented a 65 percent increase in attacks by the Taliban and other insurgent groups as compared with the previous year. It also saw a 14 percent increase in the number of Afghan civilians killed by the Taliban. In addition, the Pentagon has reported that 2009 also represented the deadliest year for the US forces in Afghanistan, making it the first year in which casualties exceeded those in Iraq.

Despite all this, the US is still backing the Afghan president’s calls to ‘talk’ to the Taliban. Or to put it more crudely, to buying a place in the current power set-up for those good Taliban who commit to disarmament and breaking all ties with al Qaeda. And for those who refuse to be born again, there is always continued US military wrath. This puts a decidedly 21st century spin on the concept of gunboat diplomacy.

Yet it is the al Qaeda factor that once again highlights the dangers of ignoring the urgent need to draw up concrete strategies that will see the US through in the long term. In other words, it may be all well and good to focus exclusively on reining in the home-grown Afghan insurgency. But what happens after that?

Obama has long said that his primary objective in Afghanistan is to thwart al Qaeda attempts to establish safe havens within the country. Yet he must also acknowledge that the apparent success of Operation Moshtarak has relied heavily on the fact that troops did not have to contend with the additional burden of taking on this international terror cell.

And if Washington becomes too wrapped up in Taliban defeats, confident in the knowledge that al Qaeda is fragmented and on the run in isolated parts of the country, it will have lulled itself into a false sense of security that risks dire consequences.

Already there have been reports indicating that the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), perpetrator of the 2008 Mumbai attacks, has superseded al Qaeda in the global threat stakes. Indeed, a recent Newsweek report referred to the LeT as “potentially the most dangerous outfit on the planet”.

Analysts put this down, in part, to the outfit’s advanced technological sophistication, global recruiting and fundraising network, to say nothing of its alleged ties to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency. More worryingly, they describe it as at ‘merging point’ with al Qaeda and as representing the latter’s “replacement infrastructure”. Indeed, as the Newsweek report reminds us, one of the perpetrators of the London bombings — claimed by al Qaeda — attended an LeT training camp. And if all that were not enough, the group is believed to have started operating from within Afghanistan back in 2006.

Yet we have no idea of how, or if, the US aims to tackle this within the context of its Afghan policy. It is not enough to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan, al Qaeda in Pakistan and ignore the shadow looming large over both initiatives. In fact, that this continues to be the American position in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks is unforgivable. That it continues to be the American position after the re-election of Washington’s own man in Kabul underscores the extent to which Obama’s Afghan project is rapidly freefalling.