President Obama has promised the US public
that before his term is over, he will ensure that US forces pull out of
Afghanistan. And while a huge number of coalition troops have been pulled out,
there seem to be some problems happening along the way. The US military is
against a sharp reduction in troops from Afghanistan, fearing that such a thing
happening will provide fertile grounds to Al Qaida and Taliban to reestablish
themselves in Afghanistan. They believe that Afghanistan Military and other law enforcement agencies are ill equipped to handle the Taliban threat and indeed
this looks to be the case with reports of huge corruption and abandonment common
in the Afghanistan military.
And then there is the growing threat of ISIS
too. A withdrawal of US forces will provide recruiting ground to ISIS as well
as expand its influence in the country. Senator John McCain, a Republican and
chair of the Senate Committee on Armed Services has said that such a troops
pull out plan will create a vacuum in Afghanistan and will go against the
national interests of The United States and will indeed undo any progress that
the US made in eliminating the threat of Taliban and Al Qaida.
While reading up on this, I couldn't help but apply the Bureaucratic Politics Model on this scenario. Different players (Obama administration, US military, the Republicans among others), all
have different perspectives and interests which they would like to pursue and
the end result would depend on who yields the most power. The fact that US
pulled its forces from Iraq and then had to resend its forces after the
situation in Iraq got out of hand, diminishes, in my opinion, the power of the
US president and now he will have no option but to go with the advice of the
military.
The author has given an interesting insight into the connection of Bureaucratic Politics model and that of Obama administration. It provides an explanation that individuals do run the states and states are not unitary actors.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the Bureaucratic Political model can be aptly applied to the US. But i feel like in other cases such as in autocratic states, the main leader and the top tier have way more say and decisive power than junior players. Just look at how much power Putin in the governance of Russia (largely unlimited) has versus the amount of power Obama has (which is constantly being challenged by the military, the judiciary and the congress as you aptly pointed out)
ReplyDeleteGood points, though I think the U.S. will only leave behind a few thousand soldiers (at max) in Afghanistan. Even in Iraq, the U.S. currently only has a few hundred military personnel, all who are there for advisory positions, not active military engagement.
ReplyDeleteAnd Ali, you just argued in your post that states ARE unitary actors and yet here you say they are NOT unitary actors....which way is it in your view?
I agree with you Rida that democratic states are more influenced by the bureaucratic politics model as compared to autocratic states.
Sir, I said in my posts that before taking this course I thought states are unitary actors, but now I believe that individuals and institutions run the state affairs.
ReplyDeleteYou were unclear in your statement. You said, "States are unitary actors, one always understood that way, but recognized that states are mere abstractions and it is the institutions and individuals in the state apparatus that run the state affairs." Now I see that you meant that state are NOT unitary actors, but reading your original piece quickly it made it appear that you were saying they were. Thank you for the clarification.
Delete