Obama's big blunder

President Barack Obama will soon lay out his plans for future US involvement in Afghanistan. He is expected to announce an enhanced US role in that part of the world, including a significant troop build up, perhaps in the region of some 30-40 thousand combat troops. In other words, when all is said and done, Obama will have more than doubled the numbers of US troops in Afghanistan since becoming commander-in-chief last January.
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama oversold the Afghan war in order to shore up his national security credentials by arguing that it was the "right" war as opposed to the "dump" war in Iraq. After hammering George Bush for taking his eye off the ball on Afghanistan, Obama has little room to manoeuvre. His liberal support base is up in arms over this seemingly open-ended commitment of military resources. His conservative critics are looking for an opportunity to label him weak on national security and he does not seem eager to give them that opening. His own words are coming back to bite Obama.
So Obama is doing the safe thing: follow the generals' lead and increase troops while arguing that the end is within sight. Those of us on Obama's left tend to think that he is making a huge strategic blunder, both politically and in foreign policy terms. The transition from a conservative to a progressive administration should have provided the opportunity (excuse, if you are cynical) to radically change course by offering a more rational approach to the Afghan question, not entirely driven by the political exigencies of 911.
Such a new approach would have been based on the recognition that September 11 was largely a fluke which was enabled by the fact that America was innocent at that moment in time. No one thought it could happen here and so no steps were taken to prepare for such an assault on the country's sense of confidence in its own ability to protect its people at home. In other words, we do not believe that what happens in the Afghan desert makes Americans any safer than what happens on the streets of New York. The Israeli model would seem to bear this argument out.
This is not to say that Obama should take his eye off the ball with respect to the violent extremism represented by the Al Quaidas and Talibans of this world, but to point out that expanding this protracted war does not impress us as a judicious application of both human and material resources.
Ultimately, the United States cannot determine what kind of government Afghans have without permanently occupying that country. The question ought to be: could it be that the US can achieve more with the threat of force than with real force by making anyone in charge of Afghanistan understand that the US will not hesitate to use force if necessary?

Bashing Mugabe, with a pinch of salt

Imagine that you had to find something good to say about Robert Mugabe, the ZANU-PF leader, with the proviso that it could not be something from his past, thus eliminating his purported leadership of the liberation struggle which (by the way) he only assumed right at the end of the struggle in the late 1970s. You would not be able to talk about how he managed to lull the world into a false sense of optimism about the future of Zimbabwe by preaching reconciliation at independence- clearly designed with one purpose in mind -to consolidate his shaky hold on the reins of power.
If you could not talk about his exaggerated influence in the anti-apartheid struggle (Zimbabwe did not make the economic sacrifices that Mozambique for instance, suffered by shutting Rhodesian access to the ports of Beira and Maputo during our own war of independence). On the contrary, trade between Zimbabwe and apartheid South African actually grew, even as Mugabe made a lot of noise about the need for sanctions. In more recent years, if Mugabe had retained a small portion of the pragmatism that he showed in his handling of the apartheid regime , Zimbabwe might have been spared much of its current pains.
What good is there to be said on behalf of this fellow? I can only think of one but it may not be recognized for generations hence. Mugabe is a good student of history. He understands that those who shy away from exercising their power will be ignored by history (Barack Obama take note). Like it or not, history is made by those who understand that fortune tends to favor the brave, which explains why all my readers are probably reasonably fluent in a foreign language -English.
Mugabe obviously knows that in the ever turning mill of history, brute force is often rewarded. It does not matter in the end how the west was one. Does anyone truly regret that some of the world's supposedly great countries (the United States, Mexico, Australia, South Africa) were founded on the genocidal rape, murder and decimation of native tribes in proportions that would shock modern consciences?
Recently, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd allegedly called on those asking Australia to be more accommodating towards the sensitivities of its new immigrants to leave if they did not like that country as it was. Clearly, Rudd has conveniently forgotten that his is a country founded by means of a murderous assault on the indigenous populations, some of who were kept in captivity as circus exhibits barely a hundred years ago. Who cares?
Fast forward a hundred years. Who is to say that another generation of Zimbabweans might not have a different take on the events of our own hapless one? It's worth repeating here: one day Mugabe may indeed be seen to have been the true genius that he has always wanted to be.

Talking forever

It has been widely reported that talks between the Movement for Democratic and ZANU-PF have resumed. As many of my readers might know, some form of formal talking has been going on between these two parties for a very long time, perhaps close on eight years. Even the talks that resulted in the new South Africa lasted for no more than about three years and we all know what their results were.
What have our lengthy talks yielded? A shaky agreement which needs to be re-negotiated every so often that one must wonder if these talks are anything but an end in themselves. I realize that I am beginning to sound like a cynic but what else am I to make of these talks upon talks upon talks? I know that the evil genius behind the Zimbabwean crisis, one Robert Mugabe (and his cohorts) stand to benefit from protracted talks.
As I have suggested in these columns before, he needs to buy time so that he can fulfil his desire to die in office, a prospect whose plausibility gained some traction recently when a would-be returning Mugabe henchman, Jonathan Moyo, made it almost official.
Talking to Mugabe is unlikely to yield national reconciliation and renewal anytime soon. These talks will enable the region to enjoy a semblance of quiet for about a year so that South Africa can host the football World Cup. Any tangible results from the current round of negotiations, such as a new constitution for Zimbabwe and fresh elections, will not be allowed to dominate the regional political calendar until the soccer showpiece is out of the way.
Hell may break loose thereafter, unless nature intervenes. Hoza 2011!

The way forward!

Even under the best of circumstances, going into a coalition government is a dicey proposition fraught with dangers for the uninitiated. Most coalition governments do not last for very long because they are, by definition, a marriage of convenience at best and in the case of the MDC and ZANU-PF, a forced one. If one partner in such an arrangement is an evil genius, such as Robert Mugabe, the stakes for the other party are even more daunting. No doubt this experience continues to provide plenty of learning opportunities for the MDC.
Going forward, the MDC must guard against Mugabe's manipulative machinations. The cases of the attorney general and the governor of the central bank will be milked by ZANU-PF not only to buy time but also to divide the opposition between those who view these cases as red herrings and those who see a political victory if Mugabe is forced to eat humble pie and fire these two unilateral appointments. For some in the movement, such a development would be the equivalent of the proverbial slippery slope, which would mark the beginning of the descent of Mugabe into oblivion.
I would rather be more pessimistic because I suspect there will be a face-saving agreement which will cost the people of Zimbabwe a lot of money, with multiple offices being created to accommodate these loyal Mugabe henchmen, not least among them ambassadorships.
After all, the real attorney general in Zimbabwe is Mugabe himself. Johannes Tomana cannot reasonably be thought of as a man of his own mind. Central bank governor Gideon Gono has largely been sidelined and rendered irrelevant by finance minister Tendayi Biti.
Our friends in the movement should be thinking about building institutions, practices and traditions that will be the bedrock of any long term settlement of our national troubles, as opposed to getting bogged down in the sterile political maneuvering which has been the hallmark of ZANU-PF politics for thirty years and for which the people of Zimbabwe are now paying a heavy price.
Easier said than done? That may be the case, but if I were a politician of any colour, I would not bet against the collective wisdom of the people of Zimbabwe who will, ultimately, be the final arbiters in all these matters.