The Statesman 13 Sep 2014 Shift in geostrategy Barack Obama has enunciated a dramatic change in geostrategy, one that might theoretically be concordant with the USA’s policy of global policing but is bound to astonish the world nonetheless. After resisting military engagement in Syria for more than three years, the US President has authorised a major expansion of its offensive against the rampaging Sunni militants. Syria will be the target of airstrikes and the outlook is awesome in the context of the deployment of 475 military advisers to Iraq. After years of dithering by the West, most particularly the Security Council in the face of resistance by Russia and China, President Obama has authorised a robust deviation from the policy of masterly inactivity vis-a-vis Bashar al Assad. Verily, Syria is set to showcase a dual US strategy ~ the passivity towards an oppressive dictator will be matched with a blitzkrieg against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Logistically, the presidential palace in Damascus will not be the target of the American bomber; the surgical strikes will be designed to rout the fundamentalist militants of the ISIS variety. The rival entity called Al Qaida must be enjoying a quiet chuckle three years after Osama bin Laden was exterminated by US Seals in an operation that was monitored by President Obama. “Eradicating a cancer like ISIS was a long-term challenge that would put some American troops at risk,” were his words of caution obviously addressed to the domestic constituency that is unlikely to readily endorse the military involvement in Syria. The President is presumptuous when he calibrates that strategy on the basis of a “global coalition” ~ a distinct change in semantics from the “coalition of the willing” that had marked the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One major factor is the constitutional uncertainty that the United Kingdom faces; the other is the impact of the recent dissolution of the French cabinet; yet another is the change in international power-play over the conflict in the Ukraine. As a response to the ISIS challenge, the offensive in Syria was somewhat inevitable; logistically, it is an extension of the airstrikes against the Sunni surge in Iraq. The President has sought to dispel fears that the United States was embarking on a repeat of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After enduring harsh criticism for saying two weeks ago that he did not have a strategy for dealing with ISIS in Syria, Mr Obama has outlined a plan that will bolster American training and arming of moderate Syrian rebels to fight the militants. Markedly, he has abjured reference to a feared genocide as a raison d’etre of the Syrian operations. Unlike in Iraq, he has avoided a conclusion-to-premise paradigm. He came to power in 2008 by opposing the Iraq war. Is he now trying to salvage his second term? Trim or tamper? This could well be a case of what appears positive action actually being taken for rather specious reasons. At first glance many followers of sport would appreciate the pruning of the Indian contingent for the upcoming Asian Games from 942 athletes and coaches to a total of 679: and express a certain amazement at the Indian Olympic Association having recommended a giant squad in the hope that the government would foot the bill ~ remember the larger the squad the more the officials on the bandwagon. However the government’s prohibiting sportspersons from participating at their own expense is not just harsh, but lends itself to interpretation of the sports ministry and the Sports Authority of India exercising too much muscle. And that the final call was taken by the Prime Minister’s Office only confirms that despite the claims of “less government more governance” the sarkar is determined to spread its tentacles ~ although the Olympic movement emphasises that sport must not be government-controlled. Many sportspersons have been left disappointed at the netas and babus deciding in which disciplines India will not participate, a few are contemplating a judicial remedy to what they contend is a curb on a fundamental right. Let the law take its course, and may the IOA “prove” that the government is undermining its autonomy. While there are various dimensions to these long-drawn power games, what disturbs are some of the reasons being cited for cutting down the Indian contingent. One is that many of the persons recommended by the federations had poor prospects of making it to the victory podium ~ the obnoxious obsession that politicians have with “winnability” is now polluting the sporting environment. Has no one in the SAI and ministry ever heard the Olympic creed that “the important thing is not to win but take part”? The bureaucratic yardstick that the medals tally must be reflective of the size of a contingent is equally despicable ~ would the size of the bureaucracy be reduced because the departments did not “perform”? It is rather obvious that the “cuts” have been unimaginative, vital support is being denied to some of the teams because the people calling the shots in the “corridors of power” have never participated in sporting activity ~ which does not include the dirty games in which politicians and contemporary civil servants indulge. The latter simply cannot come to terms with the federations wielding authority when they control the purse-strings. And that is the bane of Indian sport. Cricket apart the federations are dependent on government finance. Is it not a ridiculous situation that the size of the Asiad contingent had to be determined by the PMO ~ surely it had more serious issues on its plate? Or is this a way to tell us that everything now gets decided by the PMO?
Posted on: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 15:27:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015