Obama budgets do not change this situation

The first rule for assessing the actual strategy of a Government is to know where the money goes. America's military budget is greater than all the others. Obama budgets do not change this situation. For the fiscal year 2010, 755 billion are planned for military spending, or more than budgetary spending in all other areas gathered, apart from such "mandatory" for social security expenditure, payment of the interests of the national debt, health care and a few other posts. This balance of military spending is valid for ten years of the Obama medium-term scenario.

According to the Swedish International Peace Research Institute, the total global military expenditures 2005 constant dollars reached about 1,400 billion in 2007. In other words, the United States spend about the same amount as the rest of the world combined. Political decisions in recent months offer more hope for a fundamental change of direction of American foreign policy. If the United States signed an agreement with the Iraq on their withdrawal by the end of 2011, it is however question the Pentagon that US troops "non-combatants" remain in the country for years or decades to come.

Several opponents of the war in Iraq, including myself, think that fundamental and very little objective sound at the beginning of the war was to create a military base (or several) indwelling in Iraq, obviously to protect the concessions and oil routes. However, as illustrated by the Iran and Saudi Arabia, such a long term presence likely sooner or later result in a return of explosive sticks. Concerns are even more serious Afghanistan and Pakistan. The war of NATO against the Taliban in Afghanistan goes wrong, such that the Commander of US forces was replaced this month. In addition, the Taliban are gaining ground in neighbouring Pakistan.

The Afghanistan and the neighbouring provinces of Pakistan are poor areas, where unemployment is widespread, where young population continues to grow, where drought extend, where famines are widespread. In such conditions, the Taliban and Al-Qaida did no harm to mobilize fighters. A US military response is fundamentally unnecessary in these conditions and can easily inflame the situation rather than resolve. According to a recent survey there are few, the opposition of the Pakistanis to the American military incursions into their countries is overwhelming.

Obama double Afghanistan implementation, by passing the contingent of up to 38,000 to 68,000 soldiers, and perhaps more later. There are also risks to ensure that the United States are much more involved in the fight in Pakistan. The new Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan would be a specialist in the "counterinsurgency", which might involve a discrete fight of us agents in Pakistan. The results could be catastrophic, and lead to a war in an unstable country of 180 million people.

But the more disconcerting, it is not hard funding or the spread of the war, but the absence of a US strategy of replacement. Obama and his senior advisers discussed on numerous occasions the need to address the underlying sources of conflict, including poverty and unemployment. Billions of dollars have been reserved to economic aid to the Afghanistan and Pakistan. This amount appears well lean.

Before investing additional billions in military operations failed, the Obama Government should rethink its policy. It is high time to launch a strategy of peace through development sustainable including investments in health, education, livelihoods, water and sanitation, and irrigation in the currently sensitive areas, starting with the Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Focus on economic development would save many lives and transform the incredibly high cost of war in economic profits from development. Barack Obama must do so before the current crisis is driven in a still more appalling disaster.