Obama win sparks global conversation on Iraq and Afghanistan

Troop withdrawal, Taliban havens, and Iraq's security may define Obama's presidency, analysts say.

By Huma Yusuf

posted November 05, 2008 at 9:04 am EST

News that Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States has already sparked a global conversation about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how American foreign policy will shift in the coming months.

A review of Mr. Obama's foreign-policy initiatives in The Guardian prioritized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US troops will be pulled out of Iraq in the next 16 months, while the American force in Afghanistan will be substantially reinforced, reversing what is widely seen as one of the fundamental strategic blunders of the Bush era. The US military effort is to be focused once more on al-Qaida and its allies. Obama has vowed that if necessary, American forces would, as under the Bush administration, cross the Pakistan border in pursuit of al-Qaida targets.

In Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari stated that he did not expect an immediate shift in US policy despite Obama's unique perspective on the war there, reports the Associated Press (AP).

"We don't expect any change to happen overnight or any hasty change in U.S. policy and commitment toward Iraq," Zebari told Al-Arabiyah TV moments after Obama claimed victory over Republican John McCain....

Zebari said Obama told Iraqi leaders earlier this year during meetings in Baghdad and Washington that "he would not take any hasty decisions ... and any decision that concerns Iraq would be taken after thorough discussions with the Iraqi government and field military leaders."

Meanwhile, US troops stationed in Iraq watching election results come in on Wednesday morning hoped that Obama would bring soldiers home quickly yet responsibly, reports Reuters.

Iraqi citizens were divided about the long-term implications of Obama's victory, reports The Guardian.

"Iraqis appeared sharply divided on the election's ramifications, with many believing a sudden change from the painful but entrenched policies of the departing Bush regime could prove disastrous....

Most seemed willing to accept the untested Democrat, believing that whatever policies he takes to the White House will provide a much-needed political circuitbreaker after five tumultuous years.

According to the London-based Telegraph, Obama's stance on the Iraq war will be one of the defining issues of his term in office.

For Mr. Obama to go back on his pledge of a stepped withdrawal over 16 months would be a serious breach of his contract with the electorate. And he is unlikely to do so, given the increasingly nationalistic mood in Iraq.

The presidential-elect has already played a role in setting the US pull-back in motion. The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki used Mr Obama's visit to Iraq in July to align Baghdad with his timetable.

In a news analysis run by the AP, Steven Hurst argues that Iraq could be the first diplomatic and military bind facing Obama, even before he takes office on Jan. 20, 2009, if the Iraqi government does not submit a draft security pact to Parliament for approval in the coming days. The pact calls for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, but Iraqi lawmakers are still pressing for changes to the pact: They want more jurisdiction over US troops, a guarantee that Iraqi territory will not be used to launch attacks in neighboring countries, and no possibility for US troops to extend their stay in Iraq.

If Iraq refuses a deal by year's end, the roughly 150,000 American forces in Iraq would have no legal mandate to be in the country, and the Bush administration has warned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that it would immediately pull troops back to U.S. bases.

That, in turn, would leave Iraq's improving but still wobbly, undermanned and questionably equipped security forces standing alone against al-Qaida fighters and Shiite militants....

If President Bush leaves office with American forces confined to barracks, as would be the case if the agreement is not reached by year's end, the Iraq problem immediately jumps to the top of the list of the next president's massive to-do list....

For Obama, the agreement, as it now stands, comes closer to what he has been proposing all along. His campaign promise to set a 16-month deadline for pulling out U.S. troops would expire in May 2010. But that's still more than a year and a half before what's called for in the pending U.S.-Iraqi agreement....

If the Iraqis refuse any deal at all, [the] president-elect would face a huge potential crisis: the vast logistical nightmare of removing tens of thousands of American forces and vast stores of materiel from a country that still bristles with fighters who would be willing to attack departing forces.

The Obama win may also bring a spike in violence in Iraq, reports The Guardian.

Getting out of Iraq will be all the more imperative because a financially weakened America can no longer afford to stay, but it will be far from easy. Robert Kaplan, an author and strategic analyst at the Centre for a New American Security in Washington, warns that the insurgents and the Iranian government will seek to ensure an American withdrawal is a humiliating one.

"I fear a measurable uptick in violence in Iraq if Obama wins on Tuesday," Kaplan wrote last week, arguing that US forces should ease their way out of Iraq rather than "rush for the exits."

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai celebrated Obama's victory and welcomed the president-elect's new strategy, which places a greater focus on the war with the Taliban, reports Reuters India. Mr. Karzai also requested that Obama help eradicate Taliban strongholds in Pakistan.

Afghan officials called for more diplomatic effort to bring Afghanistan and Pakistan closer together to stamp out safe havens the Taliban enjoy in Pakistan's rugged border region.

"The request of Afghanistan is a repeat of our requests that we have had for a long time," Karzai said. "Our request is a change of strategy in the campaign against terrorism; meaning the campaign against terrorism is not in the villages of Afghanistan, the campaign against terrorism is not in our country."

An Afghanistan-based Taliban spokesman also had a message for Obama, reports the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press [password protected]. Qari Mohammad Yousuf stated that the new American president should withdraw troops from Afghanistan and thus "begin an era of peace."

Critics of Obama's Afghanistan strategy have pointed out that increasing troop presence there will not necessarily be the best solution, reports The Guardian.

In Afghanistan, security has been eroding and the Taliban is resurgent. Diplomats and soldiers in the US and Europe have been warning that pouring in more troops could be ineffective, or even counter-productive without a stronger government in Kabul to fight for. Meanwhile, continuing to cross the Pakistani border in pursuit of al-Qaida or the Taliban could fatally weaken that country's already fragile democracy and bolster extremism.

According to the BBC, news of Obama's victory provoked a warm reaction in Pakistan.

Pakistan's prime minister also congratulated Obama on his victory, saying he hoped the Democrat would promote "peace and stability."

Yousuf Raza Gilani said: "I hope that under your dynamic leadership, [the] United States will continue to be a source of global peace and new ideas for humanity.

"I look forward to more opportunities to discuss ways to further strengthen Pakistan-US relations and to promote peace and stability in our region and beyond."

However, Dawn, an English-language Pakistani daily, reports that Mr. Gilani warned on Tuesday that unless unilateral attacks by US and NATO forces on targets in Pakistan ceased, the new president would face widespread anti-American sentiment.

An opinion piece in another Pakistani daily, The News, warns against Obama's Pakistan policy, arguing that it will result in civil war and an eventual takeover by longtime rival India.

Ever wonder why the American drones attacking Pakistan are manned by CIA and not the US military? That's because there is a plan. And the plan now is to carefully eliminate pro-Pakistan Pashtun tribal leaders and leave Islamabad with a civil war....

But our troubles appear to be only starting. Bruce Riedel, who retired from the CIA in 2006 and served from [1997] to 2002 on the National Security Council, is advising Barack Obama on Pakistan. Even some Americans are alarmed at the ideas of Mr. Obama's pointman on Pakistan....

Mr. Obama is impressed with his adviser's ideas. Over the weekend he picked another longtime Riedel theme: that resolving Kashmir is essential to fighting terrorism. But before someone in Islamabad gets excited about this, Mr Riedel – and now his boss – are basically talking about ending Pakistan's excuse of the lingering dispute of Kashmir which stands in the way of accepting Washington's desire to see India walk all over Pakistan.

Indeed, Obama's expressed desire to address the longstanding Kashmir dispute so that the Pakistani military can focus on tackling the regional terrorist threat has caused concern in New Delhi, reports The Hindustan Times.

Not all are so enthusiastic about the Obama presidency in India though. The diplomatic establishment and strategic circles are treading cautiously, especially after Obama's recent remarks on Kashmir, which they see as a throwback to American postures 10 years ago.

On a more general note, a news analysis by Rob Reynolds on the Al Jazeera website emphasizes how Obama's heritage may facilitate relations between the US and the Muslim world at large.

Obama is a Christian, but given his background as the son of a man born into the Muslim faith (as well as the resonance of his traditionally Muslim middle name) I expect that much of the Muslim world will view Obama optimistically.