President Obama has had many a war to fight in his short presidency beyond the likely nemesis, the ongoing Afghan war. Bob Woodward’s book, Obama’s Wars, details the nature of those wars; infighting, soothing frayed sentiment, holding off military’s sway, the persistent bickering between and amongst the intelligence communities. It could have well been located in any of Pakistan’s inter-agency debates and the flavour would have been little different. On that count at least, the US and Pakistan stand on the same pedestal. The book may have only hit the stands in Washington and London that there appeared a review after review and critiqued analysis of Bob Woodward’s work. It could have well been that those in these capitals had the privilege of an early copy but there were a few here in Pakistan who published reviews simultaneously that only a full reading would permit. In the initial few days commentaries based on excerpts that were borrowed from publications abroad set every tongue wagging on how the familiar villains of the war, the Pakistan Army, intelligence agencies, Zardari, Husain Haqqani — usual culprits of the Pakistani scene — were all proven guilty in an affirmation of the long-held views on Pakistan’s doublespeak and forked wisdom. Most were sucked into this debate based on these excerpts without a physical feel of the book or the context of the known portions. Thanks to a preconception of the likely offenders, built around un-relentless crucifixion and archetypical characterisation of these institutions by the self-righteous moralist brigade, no fig for propriety could hamper the onslaught against what was being popularly touted; it did not matter if what was being said was relevant to the book. The book was so severely mauled and beaten dead that it seemed stale by the time it appeared in Pakistan. It was a revelation though when one read it. It is not centred on Pakistan and does not deride any Pakistani institution as we were made to hear and believe by those who reviewed the work. The book is strictly about Obama’s wars; not a war that would be Afghanistan. Obama’s wars are multifaceted and spread in the vast acres of Washingtonian politics. Woodward’s book as indeed each of those that reflect a tenure of any president are replete with stories of discord, personality intricacies leading to disorder, scheming politicians and in this case generals and an applauding literati whose consistence in enabling the show to roll on has kept the circus going. It does use and discuss the Afghan war as the backdrop and in there Pakistan appears as the supporting cast to this great drama within US politics, but never the derisory mala fide that we make it to be. The book is a realistic depiction of some historic precedents and traditional disposition, some firmly held opinions that have not washed with time, and some apprehensions and fears that entrench in civilisational and cultural distrust. It does however give away some of the US’s own chicanery. Barack Obama fought his campaign around opposition to the Iraq war. The sentiment echoed with popular fatigue among the US electorate who were tricked into such a war by President Bush and his band of neo-cons. Obama won his election, thus. All this while, the Afghan war that had taken root even before the Iraq war germinated into contention became the forgotten war. Goes a long way to prove that imperial hubris is the sole determinant of royal whim. The question is: has Obama tricked himself into another Afghan war? Remember edition one of the Afghan war was Bush’s imperious fury; he then chose to neglect it, almost shelve it while moving into Iraq. Edition two of the Afghan war is what Obama has chosen to reinvigorate, rather has let himself be coerced into reinvigoration, courtesy Petraeusean fancy. One has written on a coloured man’s burden in the US culture before, and then a Democrat. Obama had thus two invocations to beat, and he ended up owning a war. Read Woodward’s account though and Obama comes out clearly wanting out. Only Gates, the Secretary of Defence, nudges him, giving into Petraeus and Co. Hence the 30,000 surge. This remains an exclusively personal design of Petraeus who has the entire military hierarchy noosed into supporting him. The few that think differently are easily sidelined. Petraeus, of course, wishes to repeat the Iraq conquest and be remembered as the general who also won Afghanistan. That will show extremely well on his CV as a Republican candidate for president. That is one side of the story. In parallel runs the Joe Biden story. There is that most revealing discussion where Biden suggests to the president that Afghanistan is only the means to the US’s ultimate objective, which is Pakistan. Two things need to be kept in mind. One, Biden from day one proposed that no effort will reach fruition till Pakistan acts on the safe havens, and hence the essence of engaging Pakistan at the level of diplomacy, economic assistance and military support. Two, according to Biden the right kind of war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is counter-terrorism, which focuses on intelligence-based special operations and targeted drone attacks. He is against large force employments and thus remained a clear dissenter in the decision to deploy the surge troops. On Pakistan, then he mentions the two strategic objectives, which are: one, the safe havens; and two, securing the nuclear weapons. Obama responds, “Strategic objectives are top secret and not to be divulged to anyone.” Having said so, he declares that safe havens in Pakistan are unacceptable and Pakistan would be expected to eliminate those, leaving behind that lingering doubt what then was the top secret element of the policy that remained unstated. Securing the nuclear weapons? Perhaps there can be more than one spin attached to the security of those weapons. Evidently, through neutralising the terrorists Pakistan’s weapons are implicitly secured from a devastating misuse. This would though be a long-winded justification. The unstated, therefore, remains potently dangerous for Pakistan. When Bruce Riedel, the security expert inducted to write Obama’s Afghan policy, suggests that the quickest way to end the Afghan saga is to transfer the war to the Af-Pak region, and Biden adds the thrust to push the Pakistan Army to engage the terrorists, especially those that threaten US/NATO interests, there is a clear design to pacify Afghanistan by taking it out of the spotlight and successfully shifting the mess of the war over to Pakistan. How far the US design remains unfulfilled is a matter of opinion though it was not for effort that the US objectives remain insatiate. Obama has promised to give away two years worth of his political capital to the war, which takes him and Petraeus and Co to 2012. The circus goes on. Or, have I been reading the wrong book? The writer is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador