US Sinking Under Tides of Economic Crisis

Today, the United States is poor, not capable enough to govern and administer the world. The world's richest country has now become the world's most indebted country. The super power, which used to provide loans to others, is itself heavily indebted today. Today, the United States has trillions of debt, which it cannot pay.
What a good proverb that one has to pay for his deeds, or that what you sow so shall you reap. The United States has been impoverished by its recklessness and arrogance.
Causes and Reasons
If we go a little back, we can see that in 2000 Christian era (when Bill Clinton was relinquishing power to George W. Bush), the United States had a surplus amount of $300 dollars in its exchequer. However, when, in the wake of the 9/11 incidents, Bush resorted to huge military and financial spending, this surplus moved to negative, meaning that $300 billion expenditures were incurred in two years. In the subsequent two years, this expenditure doubled, rising to $600 billion. In the following two years, it further grew to $900 billion, and in 2009 it blew up to $1200 billion (meaning $1.2 trillion), and today we see that it has soared to $1700 billion (meaning $1.7 trillion), which has no precedence in the US history. It forced Washington to obtain loans to prop up its falling economy. It obtained heavy loans from Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf countries.
In Bush's first tenure, the debt of the United States was $ 7.6 trillion while in his second tenure, it rose to $10.6 trillion while today it has increased to $14.02 trillion. These figures show that half of this loan has been taken during the past six years (when wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were on their height). If this $14 trillion loan is divided among all the Americans, every American will have a debt of $453,000.
Economic experts say that the United States may spend $1.3 trillion more than the its revenue this year because the budget deficit is adding $ four billion to the national debts every day, and this loss is gradually leading the United States to sinking. This means that Washington borrows 41 cents of every dollar, which it spends. The finance minister had said that such an eventuality had never occurred in the US history.
Impact of War and Fragile Peace
A matter of more shame is the fact that both the parties blame each other for this big crisis, each of them absolving itself of the responsibility. The Congress is under compulsion to do one of the following two things: either it would have to raise the upper limit of procuring loan so the government can obtain more loans, or it would have to make a huge reduction in spending and budgets. Whatever it does would not prove beneficial because debt always grows in war and fragile peace, although not as much as Bush had incurred. He impoverished the state and handed it over to Barack Obama in a bankrupted condition.
Regrettable is the fact that almost equal to half of this $14 trillion, meaning $6 billion, is to be paid as mark-up. Although the actual mark-up is $900 billion but for several reasons, it increases to$6 trillion:
1. As the government cannot pay the debt, it has to pay more markup.
2. The lenders (governments, companies, banks, and individuals) increase the ratio of their mark-up.
3. As the government loses the trust of the lenders, every one avoids paying more loans or imposes conditions of their choice.
4. It maintains its high defense expenditure and budget, therefore, both the wars are continuing on borrowed money.
The Pentagon's budget for 2011 or the present year is $707 billion. An additional $200 billion is being specified for Afghanistan, Iraq, and the so-called war on terror. Why? The Soviet Union has collapsed and WARSAW Pact has also perished. Then why is it ransacking itself and the world? Why did it lost its 6,000 soldiers without any justification and threw $3 trillion into fire? That is the reason that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have left three questions unanswered:
1. Would the United States receive so much loss if there had not been these wars?
2. Would the United States be so much indebted if there had not been these wars?
3. Would the United States is such a massive economic crisis if there had not been these wars?
Not Accepting Bitter Reality
Naturally, the answers are in negative. The attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and the huge military expenses in both the countries tumbled the stock market. The companies were plunged into losses and bankruptcy. A big financial crisis ensued in 2007-2008. It accelerated and intensified the financial and trade deficit, badly affecting the mortgage sector. The economy melted like snow. More loans were obtained. Excessive dollars were printed, which further lowered the dollar rate. It caused inflation and financial deficit grew further. Big companies got closer to closing down until the government provided billions of dollars to save them from collapse. Unemployment ensued, grew, and perpetuated. All these factors formed a chain, which has tied the hands and feet of the United States in such a manner that the latter finds it difficult, rather impossible, to get rid of it.
See, even the Soviet Union once did not accept that the Afghan war impaired it. The same way, today the United States is not accepting this bitter reality. So, the question is: If the base of this big crisis is not the Afghan war, what it is?
How and in how much time would the United States get itself out of the $14.2 trillion loan? The answer is totally obscure. Therefore, we can say that this is a very back-breaking and insurmountable crisis, which is gradually submerging the United States. Cannot we say that this huge tide is rising like those violent waves of the Red Sea, which had submerged Pharaoh?

Sending More Troops to Afghanistan, Repetition of Mistake

The US Senate has approved the resolution for fixing time frame of the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan and budget for the newly deployed troops. Despite the fact that the subject of the US forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan is the most controversial and the most disputed issue. However, most of the US senators want the immediate withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, yet the senate, has approved the $30 billion new budget for its forces in Afghanistan. Most part of this $30 billion budget will be spent on the 30,000 newly deployed US troops whose deployment in Afghanistan was announced by President Barack Obama in December 2009.

Similarly, a part of the budget will be spent on the US troops in Iraq as well. In addition to this, the United States has approved $4 billion for the projects of reconstruction and economic support in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which would be spent through the US Department of State. In addition to this, the US Congress has also approved $130 billion earlier, which would be spent in Afghanistan during the current year.

Impact of Afghan War
According to the media reports, United States has so far spent $1,000 billion on the war in Afghanistan. According to the official press releases of the Pentagon, more than 1,000 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan so far. The Afghan war has become a cancer for the United States. All of the US strategists agree that the United States may never succeed in winning the war in Afghanistan. They know that their opponents in Afghanistan are gaining strength with the passage of every month and every year, that the field of the battle against them is widening, that the opponents have been learning novel war tactics, that the circle of hatred against the United States is widening in the Islamic world, that the United States is cutting off from the Islamic world and human-loving parts of the world and that all of such forces are standing behind supporting the opponents of the United States.

The tension created by the United States Afghan war has now reached Sudan, Libya, Somalia, China, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and the Western world. The battle field has extended from Asia to Africa. The current military data of Afghanistan show that the human and property losses that the United States has incurred in Afghanistan are higher than what the US intelligence and pentagon are sharing with the media.

A clear cut majority of the US people is sure about the failure of United States in Afghanistan. 80 percent of the people of the United States want the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. US Senator Tom Harkin says: "I can no more tolerate the same. Now, it is the time to rethink over this contradiction, the confusion created by the war." Another US senator of the Democrats, Chief Benjamin says: "I think that impatience has grown very much. The nine-year presence of the foreign forces in Afghanistan has shown that in spite of the increase in the number of troops to whatever high extent, winning the war is impossible without people's support."

Security Situation
At present, except the big cities, most of the parts of Afghanistan are under the control of the opponents and the writ of the government is very weak therein. Three months ago, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), through their 15,000 well-equipped troops, launched operation named 'Mushtarak' in the small district of Marjah, which is situated in the outskirts of Lashkar Gah District in Helmand. They killed dozens of civilians in Marjah and displaced thousands from there. But Marjah is still under the control of the Taliban at the moment, and the security situation in Marjah is far worse as compared to that in past. In spite of the presence of the forces of 48 countries in Afghanistan, the Taliban captured Barg-e-Matal District in Nuristan. So, what difference they would make even if they increase the number of their troops?

Our request to the United States is to welcome the joint call of its citizens and the Afghans and, instead of sending more troops to Afghanistan, to withdraw its existing troops from Afghanistan through a strategy that is logical and acceptable to all.

Political and Economic Presence
If the United States really considers Afghanistan its strategic ally, it should establish a real government in Afghanistan and should support it in becoming self-sufficient. The few billion dollars budget, which Obama is spending on the US troops in Afghanistan, are like foam on the surface of water and it would make no difference. Instead of these expenses, if the United States spends one-fifth of this budget on the security sector in Afghanistan, the later would have its own powerful Army and police structure. In that case, United States and NATO will not need to send hundreds of billions of dollars to Afghanistan and as compensation, to take back thousands of dead bodies of their soldiers. Neither would China, Iran, Russia and the Arab world form an alliance against the United States and NATO.

The Afghans want the political and economic presence of the United States in Afghanistan and they want friendship with them inside the circle of mutual respect. Afghanistan is in need of support from the United States and the Western world and it is a supporter of globalization. But the Afghan people consider the surge in the foreign troop as something against themselves and the region. They consider the troop surge as something not beneficial for the foreigners as well. It would be better if the funds spent on the foreign forces in Afghanistan are spent on the security sector of Afghanistan.

Repercussions of 9/11

The events marking the 9/11 anniversary this year have a special significance for Afghanistan, India and the United States for several reasons. Some of the major are presented to understand the objectives of the United States.

First, it was after this fateful day eight years ago that the Pakistani military decided to carry out a massive operation against the Taliban in Swat. The notorious terrorists were either captured or killed and now the military is ready to fight Al-Qaeda in Waziristan as well.

Internal Threats to Pakistan,
This big advancement outlines the reality of the internal threats to Pakistan as a consequence of the US attack on Afghanistan. Second, the Pakistani Government, the opposition, the military and the media have finally agreed on the fact that this is Pakistan's war not America's and that this war has become compulsory to mitigate the possible threats to the country even though it might not guarantee success if used in isolation.

Third, the Pakistani military has accepted this public opinion that India is no longer Pakistan's enemy even if it remains a permanent threat to Pakistan's security. Thus, it is necessary to continue the peace process that was started by Nawaz Sharif and was carried forward by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The fourth reason is that the Obama administration has identified the need to look for a way to end the conflict that is not only related to actors in Afghanistan but also seeks to bring an end to hostilities between Pakistan and India, and Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This supports Pakistan's viewpoint that for durable peace and stability in Afghanistan, it is necessary for Afghanistan to at least maintain friendly ties with Pakistan politically or else she should be willing to fully cooperate with Pakistan.

New Political Strategy
The fifth reason is that the Americans have finally reached this conclusion that the new political strategy to expand the scope of legitimacy in Kabul is as important as the military operation to stop the resistance.

To prove this contest right, the strategy to make use of this year's presidential elections was not ignored as evident from accusations of massive vote rigging and fraud on the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. This will make it even harder to achieve stability in Afghanistan. The United States will become more dependent on Pakistan to draw the Taliban's attention toward devising a feasible formula to end the conflict. This would be a more realistic way forward for Afghanistan as compared to the military strategy, which was dependent solely on Karzai.

Support for Afghan War
The sixth reason is that the support for Afghan War amongst the American public is weakening. Like the European nations, majority of Americans are demanding the withdrawal of their soldiers. The Obama administration is looking for ways to achieve several victories in Afghanistan by next year's Congressional elections. This mission could not be achieved without a stable Pakistan and full support for her strategic interests as Pakistan cannot separate her Jihadi elements to be used against India from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Pakistan had to pay a huge price in the form of Pakistani Taliban for this unfinished business. Likewise, the United States cannot assert this viewpoint that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are one and they pose a real threat to it. The Pakistani Taliban and other jihadi groups in the country are Pakistan's problem; they have nothing to do with America.

In fact, Pakistan and America would only need to work hand in hand against the Taliban until they break the ties between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. To separate the Taliban from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban must be given a part in the government in the future. This is the ultimate solution to the Afghan problem.

Attaining Regional Peace
The seventh reason is that India is being asked to play an important role in attaining regional peace. India's secret war against Pakistan in Afghanistan and Balochistan, which was started to bring a halt to Pakistani intrusion in Kashmir, is closing its end. So the sooner India resumes the unconditional dialogues with Pakistan, the better it is.

This should not be a problem for the Congress-led UPA Indian Government as it has the capability to look into the future and strengthen Pakistan's hands in her fight against extremism both at home and abroad.

Spirits of 9/11
If 9/11 does not remain an issue for anybody, the next 12 months would be extremely crucial. Each and every party would definitely have to make compromises. The United States would have to create circumstances that bring the Taliban's representation back to Kabul. Pakistan would have to realize that some of its assets have become her liability, which needs to be taken care of.

India would have to realize that you reap what you sow and that the plans with a zero sum game are no longer viable. Now she needs to solve her issues with Pakistan through the give and take principle. Otherwise the spirits of 9/11, which have not been dead for very long, would come alive again to spread chaos in the region.

Fresh and Better Understanding
Former Pakistani President Musharraf's decision to become George W. Bush's right hand was mostly correct. However, both of them did not trust each other and kept playing games, which led to destruction. That is the reason the new Governments of the US and Pakistan must unite and try to gain a fresh and better understanding of the ground facts.

The sooner Karzai's Afghanistan and Manmohan Singh's India become part of this new arrangement, the better it is.

US Success in Afghanistan Becomes Grim

These days American politicians, think-tanks, newspapers, and journals are giving more importance to the Afghan war than to the one in Iraq. The debate on the Afghan war heated up after the recent analysis of General Stanley McChrystal, in which he said that the Afghan war was a difficult situation, but not impossible for the Americans to win. However, America will have to come up with a new policy for Afghanistan, in which the protection of Afghan civilians from the Taliban should be a number one priority.
According to General Stanley, rebuilding peoples' trust in the state is as important as protecting the civilian population from Taliban attacks. He is in favor of a dialogue with the Taliban, as well as increasing American troops in Afghanistan. General Stanley says that 60 per cent of the Taliban can be neutralized by offering them jobs.
Impact on US National Political Scene
Another senior American politician and former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as US President Barack Obama's advisor for international relations during his election campaign, has warned that if the American government does not make long lasting changes in its Afghan policy, America will meet the same fate in Afghanistan as the Soviet Union did. These analyses and opinions expressed by American politicians and commanders are being presented at a time when 51 per cent Americans feel there is no justification for fighting the Afghan war, while only 48 per cent think that President Obama was making the right decisions in Afghanistan. These opposing views and negative analyses originating from American politicians and commanders are having an impact on the American national political scene. This has raised a lot of questions for President Obama.
There are chances that support for the Afghan war in his own Democratic Party will go down and, that, he may have to rely on the opposition to send more troops to Afghanistan. The main factors which are increasing problems for Obama over the Afghan war include growing unpopularity of this war among the American public, a rising death toll of American troops, deterioration of the American economy; and lack of trust in the Afghan government by the Afghan masses and American policy-makers. Reports about election rigging in the recent Presidential polls have further lowered this trust.
Support for Afghan War
Support for the Afghan war among the Democratic Party has also gone down due to the absence of a timetable for the exit of American troops from Afghanistan, and a slow pace in training the Afghan National Army. Senior leaders in the Democratic Party, among them Senator Carl Levin, are pressurizing President Obama to ensure a clear training program for the Afghan Army before sending more American troops to Afghanistan.
The total strength of the current Afghan army is 134,000 and a deadline of 2012 has been fixed to take it up to 250,000. American politicians, analysts and intellectuals, all seem to be divided into two groups at the moment. One group believes that American troops in Afghanistan should be reduced and the war should be fought by using Predator Drone jets and other modern technology, while keeping a few soldiers on the ground. The other group believes that it would be impossible to win the Afghan war without the presence of American troops in Afghanistan. It believes it is imperative to increase American troops in Afghanistan to win the Afghan war.
Rise of Taliban
The rise in bloody attacks by the Taliban, despite additional American troops and an increase in the Afghan National Army, are a source of concern for Washington and a crucial test for American political leadership. Despite a regular increase in American troops, the activities of the Taliban have not slowed down.
So, what guarantee is there that the Taliban could be controlled with an increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan? The group that opposes American exit from Afghanistan believes that such a move will not only adversely affect Afghanistan's security, but will also destabilize Pakistan and open up new hide-outs for Al Qaida in Pakistan's Tribal Areas.
Despite the increase in bloody attacks by the Taliban, the decrease in the production of opium in Afghanistan could definitely be used as a positive argument for continued American stay in Afghanistan. According to some American analysts, which include Seth Jones of the Rand Corporation, the major cause of failure of American policies in Afghanistan during the past eight years was Washington's over emphasis on setting up a strong central government in Kabul. Whereas Max Boot, of the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that America needs 660,000 soldiers in Afghanistan to defeat the Afghan Taliban, which is an unachievable target. However, this target could be achieved by recruiting a traditional army which is only possible if Washington forgets about concentrating all its energies on forming a strong central government in Kabul. Rather, it should focus on strengthening and organizing the various Afghan tribes in keeping with their local customs, is prepared to delegate authority and involve local communities in the process of development.
US Afghan Policy
The major benefit of this approach will be to decrease support for the Taliban among the local population, bearing in mind that it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban without the support of trained, armed and organized local groups. It is difficult to say to what extent this debate will affect America's Afghan policy.
However, one thing is certain that possible changes in America's regional policies are increasing with each passing day. Efforts are going on behind-the scenes to this effect. Some Afghan diplomats have also become active in this regard. We will talk about them next time.