Hindustan Times (Ranchi)

A tale of four presidents, Afghanista­n, and India

Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden took steps which aligned with Indian goals. But their policies also frustrated, undercut, or harmed Indian interests

- Dhruva Jaishankar is executive director of ORF-America The views expressed are personal

It was never expected that we will have victory in Afghanista­n,” Taliban leader Mullah Baradar said after his return to Kabul. He was certainly not alone in expressing surprise at the sudden collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban’s complete takeover.

In the aftermath, there is plenty of blame to go around. Officials in several regional capitals played an active role in facilitati­ng the Taliban’s return to power. Many Afghans feel betrayed by their own country’s erstwhile leadership, with good reason. Others in the internatio­nal community arguably did not do enough. But there is no escaping the fact that significan­t failures lay with successive United States (US) leaders for the execution of the Afghanista­n war, the doomed reconcilia­tion process, and the chaotic withdrawal.

The US interventi­on in Afghanista­n followed the devastatin­g 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda, which struck the nerve centres of the US military and financial markets. Under George W Bush, the US easily ousted the Taliban government in Afghanista­n, which had sheltered al-Qaeda’s leadership. But the Bush administra­tion was also worried about a large-scale military commitment and maintained only a small military footprint in Afghanista­n at the outset. The US interventi­on, therefore, involved aerial bombardmen­t, the extensive use of special operations forces, and local alliances on the ground.

For India, the US policy reversal after the 1980s, when it had actively supported the mujahideen in Afghanista­n, and the 1990s, when it largely ignored the region, was welcome. The Taliban was no friend of India, as the 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines aircraft made evident, and the group had supported and allied with India-focused terrorists, including Jaishe-Mohammed and Lashkare-Taiba.

Yet, despite ousting the Taliban, the Bush administra­tion opted to work with Pakistan. It remained wary of coordinati­on with India in Afghanista­n, even as it deepened cooperatio­n with New Delhi on defence and civilian nuclear energy. After 2003, the Bush administra­tion also shifted its focus and resources to the interventi­on in Iraq.

Barack Obama was elected president as US forces began the drawdown from Iraq. The security situation in Afghanista­n had deteriorat­ed sharply, and Obama — while sceptical of foreign military interventi­on — had campaigned on Afghanista­n being a just war. He commission­ed Bruce Riedel to conduct an interagenc­y review of Afghanista­n and Pakistan policy. Richard Holbrooke was appointed Special Representa­tive for Afghanista­n and Pakistan, and a surge of US military forces was deployed under General Stanley McChrystal to wage a counterins­urgency campaign in Afghanista­n akin to the one waged in Iraq.

Obama, more than any other US president, took the fight to Pakistan. Afghanista­n became a frontline State against Pakistan, rather than the other way around, and US-Pakistan relations deteriorat­ed sharply. North Atlantic Treaty Organizati­on (NATO) and Pakistani forces exchanged fire; US supply lines were sabotaged; a US consular employee named Raymond Davis was arrested for killing two Pakistanis; and US special operations forces killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.

But the Obama administra­tion also clung to the notion that Pakistan could be dissuaded from its support for terrorists through the brokering of an India-Pakistan agreement on Jammu and Kashmir. India rebuffed efforts to interfere in what it considered a bilateral matter. Additional­ly, the US sought to build leverage with Pakistan by increasing civilian assistance under the KerryLugar-Berman Act, in what proved to be a wasteful and futile exercise. With an eye on re-election, Obama further undercut his efforts by prematurel­y announcing a drawdown of forces.

Donald Trump’s election was fol

lowed by the rise of the Islamic StateKhora­san and the proliferat­ion of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against US forces. At the insistence of national security adviser HR McMaster, Trump repledged US military support for Afghanista­n. His initial strategy was welcomed in New Delhi, as were greater coordinati­on efforts between Washington, Kabul, and New Delhi.

But following McMaster’s dismissal in 2018, Trump reversed course. Zalmay Khalilzad was made the primary interlocut­or for talks with the Taliban, and a flimsy agreement was hastily brokered, Taliban prisoners were released, and a drawdown of US forces was initiated.

Finally, Joe Biden and his advisers gave high priority to India in their first six months in office. Coordinati­on on Afghanista­n increased in several respects. Yet Biden was committed to a quick and complete withdrawal, resulting in the swift collapse of the Afghan government in August. The outcome, and the manner in which it came about, will undoubtedl­y

prove harmful for India’s regional security interests.

From 2001 to 2020, the US was neither willing to commit too much for too long to Afghanista­n, nor was it willing to face the potentiall­y disastrous consequenc­es of withdrawal. The result was the worst of all worlds — over a trillion dollars spent and thousands of lives lost with little to show for it.

From an Indian vantage point, each of the four successive US administra­tions took important steps that aligned with India’s desired end state for regional security. Yet, for different reasons, all four administra­tions also adopted policies that frustrated, undercut, or otherwise harmed Indian interests. Whether a different set of choices could have resulted in better outcomes for Afghanista­n, India, and the US will be a matter for historians to debate in the coming years and decades.

 ?? AP ?? From 2001 to 2020, the US was neither willing to commit too much for too long to Afghanista­n, nor was it willing to face the potentiall­y disastrous consequenc­es of withdrawal. The result was the worst of all worlds — over a trillion dollars spent and thousands of lives lost with little to show for it
AP From 2001 to 2020, the US was neither willing to commit too much for too long to Afghanista­n, nor was it willing to face the potentiall­y disastrous consequenc­es of withdrawal. The result was the worst of all worlds — over a trillion dollars spent and thousands of lives lost with little to show for it
 ??  ?? Dhruva Jaishankar
Dhruva Jaishankar

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India