Hindustan Times
No contradiction: Surges and a Nobel Peace
Obama should not shirk from saying that his upping the war in Afghanistan is, in fact, necessary for promoting peace
Protestors have already made a noise in Oslo as Barack Obama arrives to collect his Premature Nobel Peace Prize. Everyone has been having a field day with the seeming contradiction of his collecting the prize just days after ordering 30,000 additional US troops to go to Afghanistan. Writing before he has made his prize speech, I hope he doesn’t try to make some verbal contortions that he isn’t actually a war-monger, that he really loves peace and that he has seen Woody Harrelson playing The Messenger four times running with tears in his eyes.
Instead he should begin by quoting, at least in spirit, the old Roman saying, “If you wish peace, prepare for war.” Broadly speaking, that is the kind of world that Obama really faces. Oil-rich Norwegians are threatened only by their memories of Swedish colonial rule and salmon diseases. The United States has plenty of enemies and, in some cases, earns their enmity just because it is a sole superpower.
This primary conventional threat the US faces today is China. Not because China is spoiling for a fight, but because its military prepares for a war over Taiwan and the Pentagon, per force, does the same. As one senior member of Obama’s present defence setup once told me, “When a US general wakes up in the morning and wonders if he will have to fight today, there are only four or five countries in the world he has gamed for. And China is one of them.”
If there is any evidence Beijing, especially the People’s Liberation Army brass, would be impressed by flowers in one’s hair I have yet to find it. China is rational when it comes to avoiding arms races. But its leadership are steeped in realpolitik and are famously hard-nosed in their worldview. They take their present cue from the lessons drawn from the warfare-ridden period of the Six Kingdoms, Indian diplomats say.
If they believe the US is pulling in its claws or otherwise reducing its military presence in Asia, they move into the vacuum. And it is exactly this sort of shifting geopolitical ground on which geopoliticians trip – and cause wars. Keeping the peace in the Asia-Pacific requires the US to maintain its present military stance, not reduce it.
When it comes to taking on Al Qaeda or ensuring the Afghanistan-Pakistan area does not collapse into a maelstrom of violence and extremism, peaceniks have even less to offer.
Even if he wishes to negotiate a settlement with the Taliban, Obama will not be able to do so until he blunts their present military momentum. So long as they believe the US is about to leave in a year, the Taliban will continue to believe “the Americans have the clocks, but we have the time.” They need to have their nose bloodied before they will even bother to negotiate seriously.
What Obama’s decision to send troops indicates is that he doesn’t buy the argument that a neo-Taliban government would not continue to host Al Qaeda or even stop terrorist action from its soil. Again, the Peace At All Costs option would amount to unconditional surrender in which the US could not be assured of any change in Taliban policies.
In short, Obama should say that what he is doing – keeping up the US military presence around the world and “surging” its operations in Afghanistan – are the only practical way to maintain or bring about peace. If he was facing Norwegians in the wildlands around Qandahar he could afford to take a risk. But he is fighting an enemy akin to the Norwegians’ medieaval ancestors – the marauding Vikings. And the Vikings never gave an inch unless they were defeated by mightier arms.
(2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
Loading ...
Rodsamuel Reply:
November 27th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Your comments though correct but are out of context. Where is question of government control or socialism exist in retails sector in India? The retails market in India is driven by private sector and based on market forces. India also has few big retailers- reliance, etc. The issue is of allowing foreign companies. If you think US model is so good then why US is facing unemployment and stagnating economy. It is for these reasons that US is pressuring India to allow its companies to set up shops and boost US economy. The Indian SME sector will suffer as these retailers can and will easily import. Benefits to farmers is unknown at this stage but definetely harm the self employed retailers. New job creation is doubtful rather it will be shifting of employment from small stores to big retailers.
[Reply]
Guest Reply:
November 27th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
If we are serious about getting the market controlling the prices, then let it be a free market with competitive pricing, who can reduce more middle man that the others.
Reliance or Walmart or Metro everybody an Corporation they look after their own profits , how come reliance be good and the others are bad. Also the cold storage infrastructure are not developed in india yet.
US unemployment is because of housing market where they had too much supply of houses between 2003 -2007 and not because of Walmart or Target.
To tell a benifit of this big retaliers the price of a loaf (pack) of bread 7 years back was 79Cents and now also you will find bread for 79Cents. Can we say about the price of our staple food Rice?
Self employed will still have their space.This benifit will be consumers who will have more choices and competitive pricing and fruits or vegetables which will otherwise gets rotten will be preserved
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
November 27th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
I don’t think any country’s model is good or bad. I do know that the free market should set prices. Capital should flow to wherever it is used most efficiently. If this means individual retailers will lose jobs, or small farmers will suffer, then that is what it will be. I’m sorry, but people should acquire new skills and make themselves more competitive. I’m not sure where you are going with the US pressuring anyone. The US has been a market to all countries and has allowed all producers to sell their products. In return, what have the other countries given? A whole boat load of protectionism. If now the US asks a country to open a market in return, what is the issue? If this whole process exposes India’s sub par productivity and underemployment, so be it. It cannot be sustained forever.
[Reply]