Has World Just Avoided Yet Another Middle Eastern War?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Security situation all over the world is nothing short of chaotic and patience on all matters related to national security now a days often fizzle out very quickly particularly when it involves states like Iran and the US. Both these nations have a historic luggage of bitter bilateral relations on many issues. Though the situation improved considerably after Iran reached an agreement with 5+1 nations on its nuclear program but like it has been said earlier, it is not easy to react to any aggressive posturing with patience with a history of bitterness.

US military bases in India: Emergence of New Strategic Order in Asia

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US President Obama has begun his 3 days official visit to India today. The visit is considered a significant one as  President Obama will be the first ever US president invited as chief guest on annual Indian Republican Day parade in Delhi on 26th January. It is expected that growing strategic partnership between the two states would enter in next phase through a series  of strategic agreements in field of defense, nuclear cooperation, security, diplomacy and trade. President Obama has already declared India as a strategic partner in his Asian Pivot strategy.

It is being reported that,during this visit,in response to a US proposal, India is to throw open its military,air and naval bases to the US which means that the US will have permanent military footstep in India as well. This deal is certainly going to change the strategic equation in Asia. It is believed that in return to this offer India would be able to use the US military communication setup in Indian Ocean along with other . But, the most significant clause, being reported, is related to joint security pact between the two states where India would also get US to fight alongside it in case of a war. Considering the Indian doctrine of "Two Front War" (a response to threat which stems from strategic partnership between Islamabad and Beijing), this deal is ought to be the counter-balance strategic equation among the Asian nuclear states where two out of three, are perceived to have an undeclared alliance against the third (India). Now after the inclusion of world's only super power in this equation, the strategic balance of power hangs in middle.

This is not the first time when such a proposal has been moved by the US. Last such attempt was made during the previous Indian regime of congress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), and it was shot down by allies then. Defence Minister Antony too had vetoed it saying that it would compromise security of India. These clauses would come under the renewal of Defence pact signed in 2005. Under this pact, US had supplied India around $10 billion worth of arms. Now as the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has replaced the government in Delhi, officials of both the states are hopeful that this new agreement would be reached eventually during the current visit of President Obama.

Apart from giving the US military access to bases of Indian forces, this proposed agreement would enable the US to have direct access to India's secured communication network. This access will enable the pentagon and other US bodies to have eyes and ears within India as well. In return, India would have access to the high-tech military hardware and active military  support of the US in event of war. 

The advantage, the NDA defence ministry argues, is that in turn Indian ships can get real time information through the US networks which is not possible today. According to the NDA's defense ministry, these agreements -known as "Foundational Agreements", are just the formal announcement for the cooperation which is already there and an arrangement that is already 'operational'. These agreements include the Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement, the Logistics Support Agreement and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for geo-spatial cooperation.It points out that Indian ships in Gulf waters do refuel from US ships in sea and neither countries have objected. Now that US has shifted base to Asia, India is seen as a partner by US.

Indian response was promising for the US as Prime Minister Modi had instructed his defence minister to finalize the paperwork before Obama’s visit indicating Delhi's willingness for opening new vistas of strategic bilateral cooperation with the US.

ANALYSIS:

This new proposed strategic cooperation deal is a significant development in the region and is going to change the strategic scenario in Asia. But the implications of this agreement would be global.

1. This agreement would be perceived by Islamabad as a new strategic partnership against national security interests of Pakistan. Pakistan already has grave concerns over Indian presence in Afghanistan. 
2. This agreement would be a key development against Chinese strategic interests as well. Though it is not clear yet which bases India would allow the US to utilize, but to Beijing, it would be part of existing US encirclement strategy against China. 
3. US already has massive military presence in the East and South East of China (i.e. Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) now with this strategic partnership would establish the US military footprint in South of China as well. It is worth-noticing fact that the US forces are already there in Afghanistan which border China from West.
4. It would be interesting to see how Moscow reacts over this new development. But one fact is certain that this strategic partnership would put India's so-called Non-Alignment stance to an end.
5. The ongoing strategic maritime competition for dominance over Indian Ocean between China and US led alliance of India,Japan and Australia  would intensify further. Smaller players like Pakistan and Sri Lanka are bound to play significant role due to their geographical proximity to India.   
6. As for as Pakistan is concerned, this partnership between India and the US necessitates a similar long term strategic arrangement between China and Pakistan. Pakistan foreign policy must seek overtures to bring about a balance in Islamabad's relations with the US and Russia as well.
7. Political change in Sri Lanka is also a significant development in context of overall emerging strategic order in the region. Sir Lanka has expelled RAW's station chief in Colombo for alleged involvement in ouster of pro-China Rajapaksa regime in recent election. Against Indian wishes, new Sri Lankan government has not changed pro-China policy of previous government due to which India felt that it was time to seek the US military support to counter Chinese maritime strategy around India. In this backdrop, Sri Lankan geography would continue to hold a significant strategic value in the region.
8. Sri Lanka is also vital for the native American interests as well. Chinese naval out reach in Indian Ocean has raised eyebrows in Pentagon and the US Navy which consider the Chinese moves to build naval bases in Sri Lanka as a hostile move. The strategic Naval base of the US in Deago Garcia is located South of Sri Lanka.

All these potential factor establish the fact that a new Asian strategic order is going to take shape in coming months in which the US would assert itself through military partnership and diplomatic outreach to increase the influence in the regional geopolitics. This is what the US envisioned in her Asia-Pivot policy. Indo- US strategic partnership framework is vital prong of this strategy which is primarily designed to encircle and contain China.

Afghanistan: America's Never Ending War!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US president Obama announced on Friday, that the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan would be extended for another year and now much talked pullback would begin in as early as December 2015 provided this extension of US war pay some dividend within one year which seems highly unlikely. Under this new order now the US troops can conduct military operations without seeking approval from Kabul.

Question is, what actually compelled President Obama to expand the US troops combat role in Afghanistan when almost everyone was expecting a draw-down of major portion of US troops from Afghanistan? According to New York Time's report, the decision has been made as combat situation is not what the US had hoped for when cut off date of December 2014 was announced in May, earlier this year by President Obama.

"Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.", reads NYT report.

It is common knowledge that Post 9/11 legislation done in Washington has empowered the private military contractors, manufacturers in the power corridors. For any US government, it would be almost impossible to disengage from military conflicts around the globe. This recent decision by President Obama would also benefit Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Pentagon irrespective to its aftermath. This decision is being considered similar to the one President Obama had to make in 2009 to send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan under the pressure of Pentagon. Last 5 years' progress in WoT shows that the surge of US troops in Afghanistan failed to achieve its stated goals of degrading, dismantling and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. It is my intention to finish the job." said President Obama in 2009 while announcing the surge in 2009. These bitter realities have played a key role in this latest decision by the White House despite the fact that the US economy has been rattled due to this prolonged Afghan/Iraq wars.

But the problem, for the Obama, is that after 5 years of surge, it is evident that the Obama's Af-Pak strategy failed both on the battlefield and on the negotiation table while, back in the US,  Democrats are going in general elections within the next two years, without attaining half of the goals they set for themselves in 2009 Af-Pak review. The results of mid term elections, recently held in various US States, also point towards the waning public support for this prolonged war. So, understandably, Democrats are desperate for a clear and decisive victory. But can extension of combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan achieve this?  In this backdrop, this new decision by President Obama demands some pondering on its after effects on the regional geopolitical landscape.

Cost of War:

How this decision would change the general complexion of WoT within one year? Would there be another extension to the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan next year? These questions are critical as they are related to the military and financial rationale of prolonging this war. Back in 2009, it was estimated that the surge would cost $30 billion annually on additional 30,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. This cost was in addition to the cost of keeping earlier 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan sent in 2001 after 9/11. The studies conducted recently on cost of this war indicates that the cost would be in between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. This is a very high cost indeed even for a economy as big as America's.

South Asian geopolitics and US strategic interests:

With a strategic shift in power from the West to East, the geopolitical landscape in South Asia is also transforming rapidly. Emergence of China and Resurgence of Russia has affected the geopolitics in this region more than any other part of the world. South Asia is significant for global politics as majority of world population is inhabited here. Apart from China and Russia, India is also positioning itself to become a big and effective player in the region. In the Indian strategy of extending her influence in the region, military power projection and employment of "soft-power" are two most visible means.

The biggest historical dilemma with strategic power shift phenomenon from one region to another is that it is a slow, rare and infrequent and often a process full of conflicts and confrontations of various sorts. Historically, such power shifts always invited conflicts and recent strategic stand-off between China and the US in the Pacific rim of Indian Ocean around Japan, clearly indicates that this strategic flux of global economic and political power can get ugly very quickly. Both, rising and the existing powers (China and the US), have been locked in eyeball to eyeball situation and no one wants to blink. Despite the massive budget cuts and financial constrains, the US is compelled to maintain its current level of defense spending and even an increase in defense expenditure has been forced as the technological edge between the US and China is eroding fast. This explains the announcement of  Defense Innovation Initiative by the US Defense Secretary, Chuk Hegal, ealier this month. Under this initiative the US government would provide more funds for defense R&D (Research and Development). Main aim of this program is to develop new, smart weapons and various combat systems.

Afghanistan is strategically important. Not only for the US but more so for recently announced, "New Silk Route" strategy of China which aims for Asian economic integration. Chinese silk route goes around Afghanistan through Central Asia and Pakistan. This strategic infrastructure build up is a strategic Chinese attempt to secure her vulnerable energy supply lines and open up new markets for Chinese made products in Middle East, Europe and Central Asia by providing a cheap and efficient land-based transportation system. So, Chinese strategy for sustained oil supplies and Chinese export will not only expand her political influence in the region but would also contribute in Chinese military modernization. Chinese infrastructure developments in neighboring countries is going to get challenge US strategic interests in the region. This is why  energy experts like John Foster of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives believe that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden. "Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region.", stated Foster in one of his analysis on Why Afghanistan is strategically so important. Afghanistan lies in center of major energy and trade corridors in the region. It is going to be the root of TAPI gas pipeline (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India).        

Due to these Chinese overtures in the region, the Americans are compelled to maintain a strategic footprint in Afghanistan, directly or through a proxy like India, Recently, Indian interest in Afghanistan and the Indo-US strategic partnership in Afghanistan became vivid trends in South Asian geopolitics. Not only the US praises Indian role in Afghanistan but wants to expand this Indian foot print as well. This US desire was recently expressed by none other than Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary. “I will leave it to India to decide and to speak to what they will contribute to regional security after the end of this year, but we certainly look to India’s leadership and their continued participation.”

Implications for Regional Stability:

US reliance on India as a strategic partner in Afghanistan to safeguard converging Indo-US strategic interests in the region has become a serious concern for Islamabad during the recent years. Pakistan Army Chief has already declared India a hurdle in ongoing War on Terror in FATA region bordering restive Afghanistan. And days after that, Pakistani Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif declared the US as 'unreliable' partner. Pakistani resentment stems from the fact that despite accepting the fact that India has been creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan, Post 9/11 US foreign policy has largely favored India in Afghanistan at the cost of Pakistan's security interests in Afghanistan.   

This decision is also critical for Pakistan's internal security which has been compromised by the violent elements/terrorists of TTP/Al-Qaeda hiding inside Afghanistan. Pakistan Army has been demanding a stiff action against these elements by Afghan government since many months but Kabul didn't accept Pakistani demands in this regard. A prolonged combat in Afghanistan would compound the already volatile security on open-boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is something Pakistan does not want but if the US withdraw from Afghanistan too early, that would be more catastrophic. Furthermore, -despite prevailing hostile local sentiments -the US forces in Afghanistan are part of UN approved international campaign against Taliban.

For Pakistani perspective, there is no military solution of Afghanistan and with her current military oriented strategic mindset the US would not be able to pull troops back.  It is imperative that the US forces must continue their support against insurgency but it is responsibility of Afghan government to seek a broad based political solution of the problem. For now, Pakistan would continue to face security threats from Western front and combat in FATA region would also continue to bleed Pakistan Army and State as well. For Pakistan it is critical to take initiative and unite all noticeable factions in a political process and Afghan stability must be the top strategic priority in Pak-US relations and strategic dialog as well. Even for the US, this is the only way out if Obama really want to disengage from America's never ending war!

(END)

Russians, Americans and Middle East!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

The contours of Russian future policy towards the Middle East and the US were made clear by Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov’s, address to the UN annual session. He raised concerns over the current US policy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and proposed a new inclusive and academic approach to address the problem.

“We propose to launch under the auspices of the UN Security Council an in-depth study on the extremist and terrorist threats in all their aspects across the MENA area. The integrated approach implies also that the longstanding conflicts should be examined, primarily between Arab nations and Israel."

He also pointed out longstanding issue of Palestine as the core reason behind the regional unrest.

“The absence of settlement of the Palestinian issue over several decades remains, as it is widely recognized as one of the main factors of instability in the region that helps the extremists to recruit more and more new Jihadists.”

 Most importantly, he raised some serious concerns over Obama’s new Syrian strategy against ISIS which rely on airstrikes and using local rebels against ISIS.

“We warned against a temptation to make allies with almost anybody who proclaimed himself an enemy of [Syrian President] Assad: be it Al Qaeda, Jabhat an Nusra and other ‘fellow travellers’ seeking the change of regime, including ISIS, which today is in the focus of our attention.”

Analysis:

This is something we don't often see from Russians. A diplomatic assault against the entire narrative of the US about ISIS. Washington never consulted with UN about attack on Syria and the reasons for not doing so are also obvious. In the presence of China and Russia, every move to seek a US planned military intervention would have vetoed. Reasons behind relying more on regional allies than on NATO are also obvious. The US and Europe don’t want to face any retaliatory actions by remnants of ISIS even if they succeeded in crushing the main body of this outfit. Apart from this obvious reason, inclusion of Islamic states is critical as it provides a moral and religious narrative in support of this fight against ISIS. Recent verdict by 100 top Muslim scholars is being consider a big moral victory for ongoing campaign against ISIS.

But still this military campaign is against the international law and norms as it has no UN mandate and is pursued under a pretext which is often challenged on the geopolitical grounds. This argument that whatever is transpiring in the Middle East, including the rise of entities like ISIS, is manifestation of geopolitical maneuvering has its own merits. According to the critics of the US policy, this is where the Russians are taking moral high ground in a bid to make the legitimacy of the entire anti-ISIS campaign questionable particularly after Obama's over-militarized strategy for Syria.

For now, the US and allies have a strong pretext of attacking ISIS in Syria and Russians are not in position to do anything more than using diplomatic means and international relations norms to question the legitimacy of Obama's new war in Syria. But Washington has already played that card preemptively "denouncing Russian aggression in Europe" which led Russians to consider cease fire in Ukraine and now Moscow is trying to rectify her mistakes but at the same time cannot allow NATO to expand too close to its borders. But that concern is not immediate one. Till Russia and Ukraine reach a settlement there would be no serious challenge to the US campaign in Syria. The scenario is changing fast in Ukraine as an initial cease fire has been reached which includes formation of a buffer zone. Question is, what if this new US campaign in Syria turns into another protracted war just like Iraq and Afghanistan something accepted even by the State Department as real possibility? What if Russia give her Ukrainian adventure a quick closure?

If that happens one thing is certain that Russian response to American interventionism against Moscow's allies would not remain confined to diplomatic and media overtures. From recent statements of Russian foreign minister it looks like Moscow is looking for a closure in Ukraine and European sanctions against Russia are also driving Moscow to look for a settlement in Ukraine. Despite these sanctions, Russians are well aware of the limitations of NATO. Almost entire Eastern Europe depend onRussian energy supplies particularly in winters. US cannot push too far with sanctions against Russia. This limits US diplomatic and political options against the Russian overtures. 

In 2012, The Economist, published following map showing the gas supply to Europe and it is self explaining about how much Europe needs Russian gas supplies.

On the other hand, any prolonged war in the Middle East would dent the US narrative. Civilian casualties would escalate as Washington is going to rely too much on airstrikes, at least in initial stages of war. The US faced international embarrassment over killings of innocent civilians in FATA region of Pakistan despite the fact that all the governments in Islamabad actually never resisted the US drone strikes. In the presence of a hostile government in Syria, it would be even more challenging for the US and her Gulf allies to justify each and every air strike and still ending the war soon. Any attack on Syrian military infrastructure would complicate the problem further, a scenario Washington would like to avoid but not sure for how long. By looking at the strategic flux the region is going through, one thing is certain that the chaos in Middle East is certainly a manifestation of international geopolitics and is bound to be compounded in coming weeks and months!  

Obama’s anti-ISIS policy: Through Geopolitical Lens!

Shahzad Masood Roomi

President Obama has recently announced a new strategy to fight the ISIS in Iraq and Syria. US House of Representative has approved the policy as well. Before analyzing this strategy, let's quickly skim through the main vertexes of "new" American strategy to "degrade" and "defeat" ISIS.

1. Significant expansion of the aerial bombing campaign in Iraq
2. Training and equipping of the Iraqi army and the Kurdish Peshmerga.
3. Bombing in Syria
4. Supporting, arming and training moderate rebels against Syrian government of Bashr al Asad.
5. Getting a coalition of European and regional allies on board in the fight against IS.
6. No boots on ground.

Would this policy yield anything positive for regional peace? Very unlikely! The fundamental flaw with Obama's entire anti-ISIS strategy stems from the failure of previous attempts to eradicate terror groups through air power campaigns and policy of using non-state actors as has been rightly identified by analyst Tim Fernholz in following words:

"The legal justification the Obama administration relies upon for its war powers is the same one that justifies air strikes against extremist groups in Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan—failed or failing states where US counter-terror policy relies on dubious local allies and drone strikes to manage extremist groups. That may well be the future in Iraq and Syria".

Supporting non-state actors and bombing unconfirmed "terrorist targets" will never bring peace in any restive state. The failure of CIA's ever expanding drone wars provide an irrefutable testimony of this assertion. But a careful analysis of the US/West's anti-ISIS strategy leaves very little doubt that bringing peace in Syria is not among the real objectives of this wired "peace" strategy.

Apart from raising questions on overall strategy, one must be intrigued to investigate the criteria Washington is using to profile the Syrian rebels as "moderates" and "hardcore". We have been listening about moderate Muslim, moderate rebels and even moderate Islam. But no one in Washington or in the entire western media and intellectual circle shed any light on the definition of these "moderate rebels". As there is no clear definition or criteria exists to profile any group's tendency to do violence and terrorism it becomes an impossible task to identify such groups unless they have been identified already; an a possibility which hitherto cannot be confirmed.

How to distinguish between hardcore and Moderate rebels? Major policy flaw in Obama Strategy

Plans to arm and train such non-state actors in Syria leaves very little doubt in assertion that Obama's anti-ISIS plan is actually a recipe of complete security disaster which eventually would become a device to alter the map of Middle East once again after 100 years of World War I.

These concerns over Obama's policy and persistent fervor of White House to pursue this policy despite the above mentioned concerns demand to investigate this crisis and its response strategy through the lens of geopolitical developments taking place in the region as global powers compete to protect their strategic interests in the region.

China and Russia opposed American plans of removing Bashr Al Asad regime through a military intervention. US/NATO had to postpone their plans after Russia announced to send her naval fleet in the region. Ironically, ISIS has provided the US with a narrative which would not only enable Washington to prevent any diplomatic pressure from Russia and Iran against the planned invasion in Syria but would also create a conducive environment for regime change operation in Syria as well. This regime change operation is critical in the grand scheme of things and is part of new strategic US plan for the region. After 9/11, the US planned to launch a massive regime change campaign in seven Middle East states including Syria. This revelation was first made public by the former NATO commander General Wesley Clark in 2007. This assertion is further supported by the fact that now many experts within the US intellectual circles believe that it was Obama administration which made ISIS such a dangerous threat not only for the region but also the US interests as well. Albeit, their definition of the US interests in the region mainly revolves only around the lives of the US citizens.

Former NATO Commander - General Wesley Clark 

There is a third and more ominous view point as well in this regard. Many experts believe that the US policy is leading the entire region towards a new and more intensified conflict. This argument has its own merit and seems to be based on more realistic assessment. Syrian regime is an old Soviet/ Russian ally and this is why the US wants to through it out as revealed by General Clark as well. Russians on their part, would certainly respond to any such attempt by the US and for Iran and China it would be impossible to remain isolated in this entire conflict. In her initial response to Obama’s new Syrian strategy, Russia has warned that US air strikes against militants in Syria would be a "gross violation" of international law. Russia has asked the US to seek mandate of UN Security Council for any such attack something the US will never consider considering possible Russian veto to any such coalition. Iran, another Russian ally in the region, has already termed this anti-ISIS coalition as failure without its inclusion in it. This involves Saudi Arabia and other Sunni gulf states in this conflict as well.

In this geopolitical backdrop, the most fundamental question which still remains unanswered in the entire US Syrian policy is how today’s moderate rebel would not become a threat to regional stability and Syrian integrity tomorrow even if this policy pays off and root out ISIS successfully, regardless from the future of Bash Al Asad regime? Obama has not answered it neither those in Gulf States who thinks that ISIS would be eliminated and peace would be restored in the region. Ground reality, on the other hand is starkly obvious. Obama’s new policy may end one monster but it certainly would create another! This is exactly what transpired in Iraq after Saddam.