James Joyner passes along some rather unremarkable news about India’s views on the ongoing US occupation of Afghanistan - unremarkable news given the regional dynamic that pits India (in support of the Karzai government) against Pakistan (who had strongly backed the Taliban as its proxy/ally in Afghanistan):
India’s new ambassador to the United States, Meera Shankar, told the Atlantic Council that her government believes it is “imperative that the United States stay the course” in Afghanistan even while conceding that “stability will require a sustained engagement.”
This is not, I am assured by Shuja Nawaz, the director of our South Asia Center, breaking news. It’s a reiteration of India’s longstanding position.
Right, not surprising at all, again, given the Pakistan/India relationship. Oddly, though, Joyner fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
It’s a view in fact shared by all the key governments of the region, notably including Afghanistan’s.
Actually, not all the key governments of the region share the view that the US should remain in the region with a massive military presence in support of an India-friendly regime in Afghanistan. I can think of one that is kind of important, shares a common border with Afghanistan, common ethnic and tribal groups, some spillover of the conflict, etc. Joyner, however, continues to ignore Pakistan:
Alas, as is by now clear to regular readers of this site, it is not regional opposition that threatens to prematurely end the ISAF mission in Afghanistan but rather faltering commitment in the United States, Europe, and other Coalition countries.
Well, Pakistani opposition is a pretty significant factor in making the mission, whatever that may be at any given moment, exceedingly difficult. Further, what does it mean to say that the mission could “prematurely” end? We’ve been at it for about 8 years now, with no immediate end in sight. Even if Obama were to set a two year timetable some time after or during the recent escalation, we’d be looking at a campaign lasting 10-12 years, costing in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars and leading to thousands of US (and many more Afghani) lives lost.
One man’s premature is another man’s long overdue I suppose. To his credit (and I really am fond of his work), Joyneris honest enough about the timeline of what a fully mature commitment would look like: “decades, not years.” But why something short of a quarter century military occupation of Afghanistan should be seen as a “premature” end to this occupation, at least from an American perspective, is baffling. India, on the other hand, has a different outlook.
Related posts:
recent comments