Daily Times

Well, it is official. Thousands of American soldiers will stay on in Afghanistan after 2016. US President Barack Obama halted the troop drawdown on October 15 because “Afghan forces are still not as strong as they need to be”. This major policy U-turn means US combat forces will stay 9,800 strong throughout 2016 and be reduced to 5,500 men by the time Obama leaves office. This was not the plan. The plan was to keep an embassy-level force behind after 2016, or around 1,000 men. The Taliban seizing Kunduz briefly in September ruined this plan, or so says the White House.

Contrarian news sources like Counterpunch are pitching more sinister reasons for the about face. They say the CIA persuaded Obama to stay camped in Afghanistan for financial reasons. The spy agency allegedly traffics Afghan heroin valued in the billions to bankroll its covert operations in Syria and around the world. Add to that Afghanistan’s one trillion dollars worth of proven gas and mineral reserves and you can see why Washington insiders are keen to continue this “profit-driven resource war,” says Professor Michel Chossudovsky from the Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG).

Normally, you would dismiss such talk as conspiratorial mumbo jumbo but the tactical futility of Obama’s decision raises many questions. For one, nothing will change on the ground. This is not a surge. US forces will keep to their training and advisory role. Of course, if 9,800 American soldiers could not prevent Kunduz from falling in September, how will they fare any better next time? Especially since it was the US’ war planes that forced the Taliban retreat, not an infantry charge.

Furthermore, the timing is also curious. Obama staunchly defended his troop exit plan after announcing it in May 2014. With US military advisors and Republicans opposed from the get-go, afraid that Afghanistan would become another Iraq, the president insisted the US had to “turn the page” on overseas wars. So, what has changed? Russia and possibly, by association, Pakistan.

In Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin has expertly reminded the world of his country’s military and diplomatic heft and parried attention from the Ukraine conflict. By proposing an inclusive coalition to fight Islamic State (IS), instead of debating the merits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s rule, Putin has presented himself as the reasonable adult in contrast to Obama’s permanent sulk. His argument seeks to make NATO’s European partners second-guess themselves on Syria and Putin underlined this in his recent UN speech. If everyone focused on IS, he hinted, “then, dear friends, there would be no need for setting up more refugee camps”. With the migrant crisis escalating in Europe, Putin hopes his realism will win over US allies buckling under the deluge of incoming refugees.

Obama strongly disapproves of Russian airstrikes in Syria, saying they “only strengthen IS,” but, more worryingly, target the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting Assad. Of course, saving the Syrian regime was part of Putin’s plan but Washington is mostly to blame for the current quagmire. Obama’s long-term policy of arming Syrian moderate rebels has backfired. Rife with jihadists, the FSA is imploding on contact with IS because “the moderate opposition only exists in hotel lobbies and the minds of western diplomats,” says foreign policy analyst Ben Reynolds.

Then, there is Pakistan. By pausing the troop drawdown, it seems Obama has given up on this longtime US ally being willing or able to close the Taliban insurgency, or underwrite Afghan democracy after the US leaves in earnest. Conversely, Pakistan warms to Putin’s overtures of friendship as it tires of “do more” diktats from Washington, Obama’s love affair with India and the steady stream of terror accusations emanating from Kabul.

Since June 2014, Russia has removed its arms embargo on Pakistan, signed a bilateral defence agreement and will now build a 1,100-kilometer gas pipeline from Lahore to Karachi. Both countries also converge in their desire to tap into China’s endless money supply and the economic windfall from its trans-Eurasian ‘One Belt, One Road’ project. A telling indicator of Pakistan’s foreign policy shift came from Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on October 11, when he supported Russian military intervention in Syria, saying, “I think they are augmenting efforts against the terrorists.” Such a statement would have been heresy right through the Asif Zardari years. Washington, though, quickly returned the favour by blaming Pakistan’s military intelligence for the Kunduz hospital bombing in early October. The Associated Press on October 15 quoted unnamed analysts claiming US planes bombed the hospital because “it was being used by a Pakistani operative to coordinate Taliban activity”.

Is Obama’s drawdown U-turn then akin to a defiant last stand? Is it also a message to Russia that the US will not leave a vacuum in Afghanistan that Putin could look to fill with Pakistan’s help, thereby reversing the sacrifices of over 2,000 US soldiers? We will have to wait for the next US president to enlighten us because Obama will not force the issue in the twilight of his presidency.

The writer is a freelance columnist and audio engineer based in Islamabad