America’s dilemma

It is difficult to comprehend whether the US administration's decision for alternative route for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan is a bluff or it has some other plans that could exacerbate situation in FATA. The fact, however, remains that transit through Pakistan is more feasible, more viable and more reliable than any other route. Last week, the US Central Command chief, General David Petraeus, discussed the deals with Russia and several Central Asian states in this regard. "We have sought additional logistical routes into Afghanistan from the north.

There have been agreements reached," Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had told reporters during his visit to Pakistan. The US and NATO forces get up to 75 percent of their "non-lethal" supplies such as food, fuel and building materials from shipments that traverse volatile Pakistan. But the problem is that any feasible alternative supply routes would also require the cooperation of Russia, which is fraught with dangers in the sense that Russia would be able to present even more profound challenge than Russia's real capacity to meddle in its periphery.

India, however, is playing a role in stoking big power rivalry in a subtle manner. Analysts are of the view that any sort of agreement whereby the US becomes reliant on Russia to get supplies into Afghanistan would limit America's ability to curtail Russian ambitions elsewhere. Anyhow, Bush administration had made a mistake to give India a role in Afghanistan with which India has no border. Reportedly, President Karzai had requested Russia to provide military aid to Afghanistan to which Russian President Medvedev agreed to help Afghanistan in defense sector.

There is a perception that India is behind this maneuvering tactics with a view to achieving its objectives, which is against the US interests. The question is that with the presence of already 70,000 US and NATO troops and an addition of 30,000 troops with all the paraphernalia, why does Afghanistan need Russian arms? This means that India is clandestinely facilitating military aid agreement between Russia and Afghanistan to keep alive the conflicting interests of big powers while destabilizing Pakistan through her consulates in Afghanistan. It has to be mentioned that much before attacks on supply convoys in Pakistan ie April 2008, Russia was considering allowing transit for supplies to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

This appears to be an Indian-sponsored move. There is no denying that Pakistan is the shortest and cheapest route. But Pakistan will lose millions of dollars, should the US opt for the northern route. But it could be a blessing in disguise, as it brings peace and tranquility in FATA. Having said all, there seems to be absolutely no difference between the Bush administration and the new US administration so far as America's strategy for war on terror in Afghanistan is concerned.

There was a lot of optimism that President Obama would focus on resolving the Kashmir dispute because that is the surest way to win the war on terror, but new administration is relying on the recommendations of the think-tanks, which will not help win the war on terror, and the US and NATO forces would be in for a long haul. America has spent trillions of dollars in Iraq and hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, but always reminds Pakistan for having given $10 billion over a period of six years. And mind that out of this figure $5 billion was reimbursement of what had been spent on fuel and maintaining Pakistan troops on Pak-Afghan border. Though it is not in good taste to repeatedly remind the favour done to a friend, but what US had given to Pakistan was not a favour at all, because Pakistan has suffered enormously due to volatile situation in FATA and Pakistan due to joining the war on terror.