A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan

[muse]

The editorial has it wrong when it suggests that the US will leave by July 2011 - some of the those who came with the surge will will begin to rotate out -- July 2011 is not a magic date for US withdrawl from Afghanistan, it will however serve asa bell weather for Presidential elections come 2012.

There are at least four seperate but related issues here, first there is the US military or the Pentagon's geo-strategy, there are the political compulsion related to the presidential elections in the US, a closely related issue is US military-Civilian relationship -- These are at present, have been for a while deeply troubling to reasonable observers, exactly who is really in the drivers seat is a call many are eager to avoid.

And then there are the Pakistanis - will they suddenly wake up to realize that the US has been their friend and ally all along and has engtered into a strategic relationship with Pakistan's adversay, just as a joke of sorts -- don't count it. The leadership of the armed forces realize the US is duplitious to the core, they realize the US
plans include imposing the Indian upon the Pakistani and the Chinese.

So what aboiut this US$ 2 Billion? It's meaningless, it's as they say in Pakistan, eyewash. Will Pakistan really act in North Waziristan even as it is unable to consolidate gains elsewhere? that will take many many more Billions that these miserable US$ 2 Billion - after all, US is in arrears already.

Will US and Pakistani visions for Afghanistan suddenly come in sync in the near future? Again, Don't bet on it. The US vision for Afghanistan is diametrically opposed to the one Pakistan has - Whereas Pakistan seek a friendly stable unified Afghanistan, the US seeks a territory which can serve to primarily destablilze and blackmail China and to some degree Russia and or any other (read Pakistan) should American companies continue to fail to capture any of energy framework related business.

So what was achieved in Washington with this "Strategic" rubbish? Well, the American is not killing Pakistani servicemen, for the time being and the Pakistani is pretending to be taking the American seriously - nothing, zilch of any kind of serious importance was achieved in Washington -- and that friends is not just the truth but also a truthful reflection of the quality of relations between Pakistan and US.

So where does this leave the US forcves in Afghanistan? Count on seeing more US armed action on Pakistani territory, count on the Army that lives to fight another day, to do just that about US action on Pakistani soil.

 

[Developereo]

The US has got to be frustrated that their little waterboy India hasn't been able to prop up a workable puppet regime in Afghanistan even after nine years.

Everybody would spot a US-puppet regime a mile away, but the whole point of bringing India into Afghanistan was that they could scrounge together a sham democratic government that would, in reality, be an Indian puppet. Shifty old Karzai, as it turns out, doesn't even have the honesty to remain loyal to his masters.

 

[muse]

no doubt, but I think we might also look at theh whole India in Afghanistan and US support for such a project through the lens of the democracy for Muzlooms project -- the indian is being sold as the success story for Democracy - just as long as no one actually looks under the rug.

You know what's really curious though, is the degree to which it is acceptable to US policy makers that The GIRoA need not carry it's own water - - My take is that we may see the Afghan govt actuallly become more and more "Islamic" in it's domestic public diplomacy, one wonder how that will play with all these radical NGO and "democracy for mazlooms" type of organizations, in particular, the groups enforcing the conversion of the Afghan legal code to be more "human rights" and "gender neutral" compliant - just imagine a completely aalien set of ideas to guide the judiciary as a reflection of the Western ideas that inform it - and expect the locals to buy into it.

 

[Developereo]

Well, that seems to be increasingly the sales pitch for continued presence in Afghanistan -- that the West is there to save Afghan women. Most people acknowledge that AlQaeda has long since moved out of Afghanistan so the 9/11 rationale is not carrying much weight these days. That is also the reason given to oppose negotiations with the Taliban.

However, since India has failed to deliver what it was brought in to do in Afghanistan -- a puppet government -- NATO is looking increasingly open to plan B, i.e. talking with the Taliban. NATO desperately wants out and any face-saving exit will do -- Afghan women be damned.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I still dont think that these 2B$ are for launching a surge in NW ... !!!

 

[somebozo]

The US has got to be frustrated that their little waterboy India hasn't been able to prop up a workable puppet regime in Afghanistan even after nine years.

Everybody would spot a US-puppet regime a mile away, but the whole point of bringing India into Afghanistan was that they could scrounge together a sham democratic government that would, in reality, be an Indian puppet. Shifty old Karzai, as it turns out, doesn't even have the honesty to remain loyal to his masters.

And this is the whole ploy behind ar$e kissing of world largest democracy. A hypocrisy which cannot feed million of its people and millions more live suppressed under violence by various regional insurgencies. Remember it was the same democracy which was shunned as "even communist friends" back in the 70's.

Democracy or not, all matters is a US puppet regime.

 

[softtec]

Well, that seems to be increasingly the sales pitch for continued presence in Afghanistan -- that the West is there to save Afghan women. Most people acknowledge that AlQaeda has long since moved out of Afghanistan so the 9/11 rationale is not carrying much weight these days. That is also the reason given to oppose negotiations with the Taliban.

However, since India has failed to deliver what it was brought in to do in Afghanistan -- a puppet government -- NATO is looking increasingly open to plan B, i.e. talking with the Taliban. NATO desperately wants out and any face-saving exit will do -- Afghan women be damned.

I would ask you what do you think the presence of west was good for afgan civilization or not?

Think logically than emotionally.US had to choose NA.US had selected the side and unfortunately Pakistan gave covert support to Taliban.India was supporting NA from long back.So India become natural allay in Afgan power circuit.There was nothing in India's plate to do apart from securing its own influence.All the responsibility was on US and NA to defeat taliban and make the governance stronger.

ppl who r happy to see west out of afganisthan and taliban back, I doubt it ever happen.By the time US and Nato leave its bulk of soldiers, they will make a large professional afgan army with better arms and equipments and skill set.After that also there will be 20-30k spacial force will remain with almost all air power.By that time further weakened taliban will remain as nothing more than a big insurgent group.

All the negotiations are nothing but buying time and let the storm goes down.Let the taliban get in limited power, leave the fight.Destroy the remaining one.And by 5-10 year time, make the afgan army much stronger to eradicate the remaining power taliban would held and take them under a central rule one by one.

 

[Developereo]

I would ask you what do you think the presence of west was good for afgan civilization or not?

NATO's invasion was initially good to rid the country of Taliban's puritannical extremism, but it hasn't delivered anything worthwhile in lieu of it.

Think logically than emotionally.US had to choose NA.

The Taliban offered to negotiate but the US refused. The US had a pre-planned agenda that required removal of the Taliban as the first step. That agenda involved setting up a puppet government and India was brought in expressly for that purpose. However, India has failed to deliver and the US, having given up on India, is now willing to negotiate with the Taliban -- which they could have done nine years ago in the first place!

By the time US and Nato leave its bulk of soldiers, they will make a large professional afgan army with better arms and equipments and skill set.After that also there will be 20-30k spacial force will remain with almost all air power.By that time further weakened taliban will remain as nothing more than a big insurgent group.

I am not a fan of the Taliban but, once NATO combat troops leave, the Taliban will eradicate the Afghan 'army' within six months. If you listen to NATO, the Afghan 'army' and 'police' are the most incompetent, corrupt and unmotivated group of recruits they have ever trained. The Taliban, on the other hand, are battle-hardened over the last nine years.

 

[softtec]

NATO's invasion was initially good to rid the country of Taliban's puritannical extremism, but it hasn't delivered anything worthwhile in lieu of it.



The Taliban offered to negotiate but the US refused. The US had a pre-planned agenda that required removal of the Taliban as the first step. That agenda involved setting up a puppet government and India was brought in expressly for that purpose. However, India has failed to deliver and the US, having given up on India, is now willing to negotiate with the Taliban -- which they could have done nine years ago in the first place!



I am not a fan of the Taliban but, once NATO combat troops leave, the Taliban will eradicate the Afghan 'army' within six months. If you listen to NATO, the Afghan 'army' and 'police' are the most incompetent, corrupt and unmotivated group of recruits they have ever trained. The Taliban, on the other hand, are battle-hardened over the last nine years.

I thought u talk logically.
1.So what do you think how much US should have done to upgrade the afgan civilization?What Pakistan did while supporting taliban all those years?US kicked taliban out..and trying to not let them come in.Whatever US did it was their own money.They are trying to correct war hungry afgan groups, they are trying to correct corrupt afgan officials.But you can't change the basic nature so easily.Now You decide in which side you are..West or Taliban..

2. You are making me laugh.The real danger of afgan governance is Taliban.And you see India didn't send a single troop for that.Now you tell me how can without troop India was involved to eradicate Taliban!!

By the way, if you know India among all countries(including Pakistan)has the maximum support from afgan ppl. India wanted that and here lies the real success for India.

And for negotiation..what do think what taliban will get now?peanuts..
That also a war strategy. Let them come on board, take your time and slowly slowly pick one after other and weaken and take full control.

3.But your heart with taliban ..Last time I heard your beloved Taliban fled without fright from their strongest hold in kandhahar. Taliban will come in power in your dream only. NATO only reduce their manpower.After 2015 there will be 30-40k special forces commandos with more advance technologies and with almost the full air power(what they have now) will remain.If challenged,they can eat Taliban anytime anywhere.The more weaker Taliban will remain as a big insurgent group only.

Afgan army is corrupt and unprofessional.But that's why NATO trying to take them in correct path.That's why NATO included thousands of trainers.After 2015 they will get more equipments, left out by NATO troops.They will be more professional and skillful. And Taliban will be more weaker.

 

[Developereo]

1.So what do you think how much US should have done to upgrade the afgan civilization?

The US doesn't need to do anything; it is not their job to go around the world civilizing everybody. The Afghans need to do that by themselves.

What Pakistan did while supporting taliban all those years?

Pakistan's purpose was to stop Afghanisan becoming an Indian puppet state. The only way to do that was to support the Taliban.

US kicked taliban out..and trying to not let them come in.Whatever US did it was their own money.They are trying to correct war hungry afgan groups, they are trying to correct corrupt afgan officials.But you can't change the basic nature so easily.

The US is trying no such thing. Even they are not stupid enough to think they can change a thousand year old tribal culture in a few years. All they are trying is to have a semblance of stability so they can declare victory.

Now you tell me how can without troop India was involved to eradicate Taliban!!

India's job was not to eradicate the Taliban; NATO was tasked to do that. India's job was to put together a sham democratic government that would, in reality, by a puppet.

By the way, if you know India among all countries(including Pakistan)has the maximum support from afgan ppl. India wanted that and here lies the real success for India.

Those are Western polls; specifically a BBC commisioned poll conducted by a Eastern European (i.e. slavic) outfit. They interviewed a specific demographic to get the results they wanted (pro-NATO, anti-Taliban, pro-India, anti-Pakistan).

And for negotiation..what do think what taliban will get now?peanuts..
That also a war strategy. Let them come on board, take your time and slowly slowly pick one after other and weaken and take full control.

You got it wrong. It is not the Taliban who are begging for dialog; it's NATO and the Afghans. I am sure you are smart enough to understand what that says about who is more desperate here.

3.But your heart with taliban

My heart is with any solution that serves Pakistan's interests. That means Afghanistan must not be allowed to
a) become an Indian enclave and
b) export terrorism, drugs or religious extremism into Pakistan.

The Taliban will ensure a) but probably not b) so they are not an ideal solution for Pakistan. But I believe we will be be better able to handle the situation without NATO presence since NATO is definitely supporting a) and a) implies b).

..Last time I heard your beloved Taliban fled without fright from their strongest hold in kandhahar.

That's the nature of guerilla warfare. Nobody in their right mind will stand in a superpower's line of fire.

After 2015 there will be 30-40k special forces commandos with more advance technologies and with almost the full air power(what they have now) will remain.If challenged,they can eat Taliban anytime anywhere.

Superman to the rescue, eh? Hasn't worked too well over the last nine years. And you think it will work better with Afghan instead of NATO troops on the ground. Right!

Real life is not like a video game. NATO has realized it and desperately wants out.

Afgan army is corrupt and unprofessional.But that's why NATO trying to take them in correct path.That's why NATO included thousands of trainers.After 2015 they will get more equipments, left out by NATO troops.They will be more professional and skillful. And Taliban will be more weaker.

Unlike your wishful thinking, I am going by NATO assessments about Afghan troop readiness.

 

[softtec]

NATO's invasion was initially good to rid the country of Taliban's puritannical extremism, but it hasn't delivered anything worthwhile in lieu of it.

However, India has failed to deliver


I am not a fan of the Taliban but, once NATO combat troops leave, the Taliban will eradicate the Afghan 'army' within six months.

The US doesn't need to do anything; it is not their job to go around the world civilizing everybody. The Afghans need to do that by themselves.



Pakistan's purpose was to stop Afghanisan becoming an Indian puppet state. The only way to do that was to support the Taliban.



The US is trying no such thing. Even they are not stupid enough to think they can change a thousand year old tribal culture in a few years. All they are trying is to have a semblance of stability so they can declare victory.



India's job was not to eradicate the Taliban; NATO was tasked to do that. India's job was to put together a sham democratic government that would, in reality, by a puppet.



Those are Western polls; specifically a BBC commisioned poll conducted by a Eastern European (i.e. slavic) outfit. They interviewed a specific demographic to get the results they wanted (pro-NATO, anti-Taliban, pro-India, anti-Pakistan).



You got it wrong. It is not the Taliban who are begging for dialog; it's NATO and the Afghans. I am sure you are smart enough to understand what that says about who is more desperate here.



My heart is with any solution that serves Pakistan's interests. That means Afghanistan must not be allowed to
a) become an Indian enclave and
b) export terrorism, drugs or religious extremism into Pakistan.

The Taliban will ensure a) but probably not b) so they are not an ideal solution for Pakistan. But I believe we will be be better able to handle the situation without NATO presence since NATO is definitely supporting a) and a) implies b).



That's the nature of guerilla warfare. Nobody in their right mind will stand in a superpower's line of fire.



Superman to the rescue, eh? Hasn't worked too well over the last nine years. And you think it will work better with Afghan instead of NATO troops on the ground. Right!

Real life is not like a video game. NATO has realized it and desperately wants out.



Unlike your wishful thinking, I am going by NATO assessments about Afghan troop readiness.

1.Let the Afgan ppl say that.If you didn't do anything worthwhile for their civilization, doesn't mean others can't do also..Right?

By the way your comments are so contradictory. Look up..

2. And now tell me in which way India "failed"!!You yourself told Afgan govt is puppet.They can be corrupt, so that Pakistan govt also.Why did you drag India into that..

3.Do you have any contradictory poll to show pakistan not India has the highest support in afganistan?If not then we don't have any other choice but to believe that.

4.You didn't get my point still.What do you say begging is nothing but a NATO war strategy. All the negotiations are nothing but to make an immediate peace, buy more time, strengthen Afgan army, divide the taliban factions, weaken them and after few years slowly slowly one by one take them under central governance.

5.Nato will remain the big numbers of attacking troops(read commandos) based into Afganistan for long time to go.They are enough for these kandhahar type taliban kick out.What NATO desperately wants the holding troops, which can utilize the advantage NATO commandos will create for them.

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Strategic thinking

Daily Times
Shahzad Chaudhry
November 01, 2010

Most Pakistanis have been searching for the strategic part of the recently concluded dialogue between Pakistan and the US in Washington. The 13 groups, reportedly expanded to their present number from the original five at Pakistan’s behest, mostly deal with the Kerry-Lugar-Berman (KLB) support of $ 1.5 billion a year to Pakistan and areas as diverse as health, water, irrigation and education to agriculture, institution-building and defence. The amount of allocation in each is expected to be spent within the year of its allocation although it could flow over without lapsing. Almost all sectors fall in the purview of Pakistan’s own Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP), which in the current fiscal and economic environment has had to be significantly curtailed to create space for instant relief and sustenance to the flood victims. The KLB will therefore conveniently fill in for about one-third of the PSDP in annual allocation.

Each of these 13 sectors is a usual annual developmental and rehabilitative activity — a work in progress. When the principals, of the level of the foreign minister and the secretary of state meet every three to four months to review these sectors, it almost amounts to project management. Meeting up every three to four months with Hillary Clinton would have been strategic enough if done a few decades back — and I do not mean any disrespect since she continues to be, at her age, one of the most graceful ladies on the world scene. But there had to be something more significant to term these dialogues strategic.

Not that there was not enough on the strategic menu, but was that discussed? And, how was it discussed? A meeting opportunity at this level of leadership would have taken on Afghanistan for sure. That remains the most imminent threat to peace and stability in the region. So what did we carry: a Pakistani plan to help forge the war to an end enabling the US a much wanted graceful exit? Would that be possible through military action in North Waziristan, or a political initiative to encourage the ensconced groups there to seize the moment? If North Waziristan became inevitable, what sort of operations would be most advisable to minimise the blowback effect on Pakistan’s own security and stability? To what level can Pakistan assure the US of enabling stability in Afghanistan after the Americans leave? What level of influence are we willing to peddle there? Or are we willing to accept that while the internal dynamics of Afghanistan will find equilibrium in the surviving governmental structure ultimately, there will be little that Pakistan can do while those dynamics stabilise?

Did we, for example, leave space for a regional responsibility of all stakeholders, including Iran and India, to be a part of a joint effort to sustain stability and peace in Afghanistan? Alone we may not be able to ensure that, since the multi-ethnic composition of Afghan society lends itself to disabling interventions from regional players, including India. What is our interest as far as Afghanistan goes: a stable and a neutral Afghanistan, or a tentatively stable but pliant Afghanistan? Why would we need a pliant Afghanistan? Given the over 2,400 km long contiguous borders and Afghanistan’s virtual dependence on Pakistan’s support and goodwill for its routine existence, is there reason to feel disconcerted on Afghanistan’s post-American disposition — none whatsoever. A stable Afghanistan will bring peace to our western borders leaving us time to tend to our internal vulnerabilities. That should be our prime objective — peace around us and within.

This is where the taxonomy of strategy becomes inadequate to address the inherent nuances in a strategic process. Tradition will tell you to classify peace as a national aim, ethereal, almost sublime as a consistent object of interest, placed at the highest national mantle, almost untouchable, not as physical or tangible. It needs to be placed though at a reachable level within a nation’s constant attention as a prime area of work, something that could be moulded and formed with elements of thought, interlocution and diplomacy. Strategy in a theoretical frame links means to an objective or an aim. It becomes that via media by using appropriate resource to achieve an objective. But what if something as ethereal as peace is to be pursued as a strategy as in the case of Afghanistan when peace is essential to gain track over Pakistan’s larger callings, existential in nature: survival, cohesion, stability and prosperity — all underlining the tenuousness that bedevils Pakistan. That is when peace becomes a strategy and no more an aim alone on an academic plane. It will therefore need a hands-on approach. We pursue peace easily as an internal domestic need but treat it in an abstract frame externally on the international plane. This approach needs to be changed forthwith.

Ditto with India. Peace is Pakistan’s primary strategic interest today. Could we, for example, in our strategic dialogue with the US establish the exacerbated vulnerability of Pakistan, rendering its capacity inadequate on other fronts including internally, if relations with India do not proceed towards resolution? Our internal cohesion stands badly bruised if not fractured with the strains that society has borne since the war on terror became a living nightmare for the people of Pakistan. Attention to the healing process within will take a concerted and deliberate effort at all levels of the state and society. Peace outside, including with India, will enable such attention. The nature of extremist militancy, particularly in the cities and towns of Pakistan, is even more of an ideological tsunami in the making, which can still be halted and repaired if necessary steps are taken. Its extreme expression, terror, that has swamped the lands of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, will only find a natural flow into contiguous India, which is an equally diverse and a socially stratified society with large swathes economically dispossessed, making Indian society dangerously vulnerable. Extremist terror is as much a reality in today’s India, enabling the core to exacerbate influences when those transcend Pakistan. Terrorism is no more a neighbourhood problem of India; it is as much a problem of this entire region. Today the Indians loathe such thinking but if Pakistan fails to halt this flow, India is sure to be inundated too.

What is fast becoming a regional problem will need regional solutions. Bilateral peace and resolution of stumbling differences will enable the most essential liberty of action to these states in the region to focus on their societies and foster stability. Stability, both regional and domestic, is the key to our next most important strategic interest: economic prosperity. This region can be knit into a hub of trade and economic activity that will subsume fissiparous ideological leanings. Through a parallel paradigm of economic success, we can make all other inimical trends initially peripheral and subsequently irrelevant. Peace on our borders can be an enabler towards this dream. One hopes our dialogue with the US spent enough time on strategising peace.

The writer is a defence and political analyst.

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: In favour of drone attacks

Daily Times
Azizullah Khan Khetran
November 06, 2010


From June 11, 2004, when the first drone attack was carried out against militant commander Nek Muhammad, to October 29, 2010, 1,344 militants have been killed, including the Taliban’s and al Qaeda’s first rank commanders like Sheikh al-Fateh, the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan, Siraj Haqqani’s cousin, Haji Omar, the key Taliban commander in Mir Ali, Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan, Baitullah Mehsud, founder of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and hundreds of other low rank commanders and foot fighters. It was revealed in recent research conducted by the New American Foundation that drones proved the most effective of all the weapons used in the war against terrorism. They not only stripped the TTP and al Qaeda of its leaders but also of its sanctuaries as locals cannot afford providing them with safe havens. The Taliban are so disturbed by the drones that local tribals, in their sittings, are making fun of them by calling the drones khizra ala salam, referring to their effectiveness.

Civil society in Pakistan is well aware of the fact that the drones are cleansing us of terrorists but sometimes they fail to resist the temptation to speak out against them. This is caused by the extreme right trumpeting warnings of US encroachments on our sovereignty. Ordinary Pakistanis are made to think of them as a bad omen that may embolden the US to launch a formal, physical incursion into Pakistan.

Sovereignty is the complete power to govern a country. First of all, unfortunately, FATA has become the backwater of Pakistan. Whatever little control Pakistan’s establishment had there is now being put an end to by the TTP, al Qaeda and its offshoots. The Taliban are openly roaming around in FATA, alleged criminals are publicly executed in shariah courts, people are amputated and frequent attacks are being carried out against our army. The demolition of schools has become an old story. But even then no one can deny the fact that FATA is an integral part of Pakistan. Here we need to shun the influence of the right-wing and become rational. We should not interpret sovereignty in terms of the fundamentals of political science. From that perspective, no state in the world has sovereignty without constraints; the US is bound to subscribe to UN conventions, resolutions and international law, and so are all other states.

First, Pakistan is the US’s frontline non-NATO ally in the war against terror, which means that Pakistan and the US have to willingly extend their best possible support to each other. Drone attacks are now to be considered as committed support in that process. Second, the drones are targeting all those people who are bent upon the real violation of our sovereignty and who are busy in a declared war against our army and state machinery. They are not the ones who, if scared, will respect our sovereignty.

What is our chief security threat? It is terrorism. What should we prioritise? No doubt, its elimination. And what are drones doing except the same? Rather than theoretical terms we need to think in terms of ground reality. We are faced with a severe threat and cannot channel our meagre resources to military operations against the militants.

Some, who are unaware of the ground reality, claim that civilians are being killed in drone attacks. Though civilians are killed in such attacks, they ought to be considered as semi-militants or the militants of tomorrow as they provide the terrorist leaders of today with safe havens and feed and facilitate them. If the local tribals were unhappy with the drones then they would have raised their voice against them. Recently, according to news reports, some people in Miranshah gathered in protest against the drone attacks; perhaps they were being supplied by hidden hands. According to the Aryana Institute of Regional Research and Advocacy, 80 percent of tribals think that drones hit exact targets as pointed out on the basis of authentic information. They compare this with military operations that prove more destructive. In military operations, hundreds of homes are demolished, people are compelled to flee and civilian casualties become a natural thing. They also provide the Taliban with anti-army sentiment.

The extreme right never loses an opportunity to blow the anti-American and anti-India trumpet in our direction just to play petty politics and secure their vested interests. Recently, an opposition leader claimed that they had raised the drone issue on every platform. But he failed to tell us how big a soft corner he and his party have for Islamic fundamentalism. Was it not Shahbaz Sharif who asked the Taliban to “spare Punjab”?

The present government should not get blackmailed by rightist propaganda; it should boldly and publicly acknowledge the agreement with the US (regarding drone attacks) if there is any. Agreements strengthen sovereignty and soften one’s image.

What we need to do is remain true to the ground reality and national interest, think rationally and push for an operation against the North Waziristan-based Haqqani network where the maximum number of drone attacks are carried out. It is reported that the Haqqani group is now mediating between warring tribes in the Kurram Agency in a bid to have new strategic depth in that strategically important area. These activities might invite severe action on the part of the US and NATO forces. We should not heed rightist propaganda and empty slogans. Let the drones hover over the terrorists and terrorise them.

The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[muse]

What we need to do is remain true to the ground reality and national interest, think rationally and push for an operation against the North Waziristan-based Haqqani network where the maximum number of drone attacks are carried out.

We are all for national interest and being rational - but why exactly is pushing for operations in NWA, NOW, in the national interest or in keeping with rational thinking?

 

[muse]

Obama and peace in our region
Ashraf Jehangir Qazi


Obama is well on his way to becoming a one-term president like President Carter, and probably, like him, a very decent ex-president. When Obama won in 2008, along with the rest of the world, I was delighted. A smart, young, articulate, progressive, committed and persuasive person had replaced the unspeakable Bush and beaten the opportunist Clinton and the militarist McCain. And, yes he was black, someone who knew what it was like to be a victim of prejudice, discrimination, violation and dehumanisation. Obama began his campaign without the Black, the Latino, or the Women's vote. He got them all in the end. He even got the Jewish vote despite suspicions about his international popularity and calls for change. He got the Muslim vote though he showed little interest in canvassing for it lest he be considered one.

So, I was delighted. But I was also wary. Obama had amassed a campaign chest comprising small contributions from a mélange of constituencies which was admirable. But he was also the favourite of Wall Street and Corporate America. They financed him like they hadn't any previous candidate. Those few commentators on American and international affairs who know what the underlying and determining realities are, while preferring Obama to his opponents, were never naive enough to expect him to bring about any significant changes in American domestic, economic or foreign policies. In fact, in the field of foreign policy, they anticipated Obama's administration would, by and large, be an extension of Bush II's second term - in which he sought to minimise the disastrous consequences of his first. They were right.

According to polls the issues that preoccupy American voters are, roughly in order, the economy, jobs, housing, taxes and spending, immigration, health, terror, Afghanistan, foreign policy, etc. What would the order of importance be for the rest of the world? The difference, while understandable from a domestic political point of view, is a matter of concern in view of the global power, hard and soft, that the US commands and disposes of, and which directly impacts the prospects for war and peace worldwide. Obviously, if a bit unfairly, the US electorate felt Obama had had enough time to turn the economy around, especially the real jobs-creating economy. He turned the Wall Street economy around, along with its bonus bonanzas and buy-backs of corporations from government control, with tax payers' money exceeding a trillion dollars. But he has not averted the risk of a double-dip recession with ten per cent unemployed, continuing foreclosures, and consumer demand constrained. No wonder, the war on terror and Afghanistan in particular, and the preference for "kinetic" or military force-led foreign policies, did not figure much in the midterm election, although they are issues of primary concern for much of the rest of the world, especially the Muslim world.

The Middle East remains where it was despite all the phony posturing of peace initiatives which fools absolutely no one in the Middle East. Israel always knew it could face down Obama on settlements and a settlement process. And it has. Obama signalled his attitude before he even took office during Israel's criminal and deliberate massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. The current peace efforts were illusory from the start. Abbas faces the same trajectory as Arafat: agreeing to unprincipled compromise, getting let down by Israel and the US, and then blamed by both for not being a real partner. Next Palestinian leader on the treadmill of betrayal, please!

The war in Afghanistan has been expanded and intensified in accordance with US domestic political imperatives and timelines rather than a search for stability and peace in accordance with the ground realities in Afghanistan and the region. The surge in Iraq has been transported to Afghanistan along with its conceptualiser and implementer, General Petraeus. The surge in Iraq certainly brought down violence allowing the US to "thin out" its forces there while retaining a significant military presence including military bases indefinitely. But has it brought stability and peace? Eight months after an election Iraq has no government and it is witnessing increased sectarian and criminal violence beyond the ability of US-trained security forces to control. Is this success? Yes, I guess, for the US. Not for Iraq, for sure. What has counterinsurgency got in store for Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Obama has projected nothing but confusion about his Afghan policy which may be intellectually stimulating to try and resolve for his overworked team of brilliant advisers and other analysts, but relentlessly visits death, destruction, humiliation, alienation and anger upon Afghans and Pakistanis in very significant numbers. Is this an environment in which the tide can be permanently turned against the Taliban? Or the war against terror (however misconceived that concept) won? If the December ****** strategy review merely confirms Petraeus' comprehensive long war counterinsurgency plus "stiletto" counterterror cross-border special operations approach, it might as well not be held despite all the fascinating metrics and slides that will be presented. It will be just another chapter for Bob Woodward!

The main question before Obama today is: how to facilitate a grand diplomatic bargain for an Afghan settlement process between the major players inside and outside the country given the ground realities as they are, and given the requirements for peace, stability and development in Afghanistan and the region. This is a question that is larger than Afghanistan itself involving India-Pakistan and US-Iran relations, as well as the interests of other regional countries, including China, India, Russia, Iran and the Central Asian states. There is, of course, a core process which must involve the Afghan parties themselves within a Loya Jirga context, and a core regional and international process which must involve the US and Pakistan as well as the main Afghan parties. There is also a donor country process.

These levels of engagement need to be integrated into a comprehensive settlement process or grand diplomatic bargain based on understandings reached between the key players. These understandings must involve commitments of mutual assurance (a comprehensive ceasefire, end-date for troop withdrawals, improved and inclusive governance, willingness to compromise and seek political objectives through constitutional and non-violent means, respect for human rights without making it an Islam versus Human Rights Charter issue, dismantling the infrastructure of extremism inside and outside Afghanistan, interlocutors issuing appropriate statements supporting such a process, etc.) The UN and its Agencies, Funds and Programmes should play a facilitating and integrating role in concert with other regional organizations.

A White House-driven process cannot substitute for such a comprehensive and integrated process, although the US role will always be crucial. Obama's current policy does not facilitate such a process and, accordingly, it does not facilitate peace and stability in the region. Nor have the other players, by any means, got their strategies and policies right. A mutual strategy adjustment process to promote greater compatibility between the approaches of key players needs to be explored for which mechanisms need to be immediately devised. This is a prerequisite for any progress in the right direction. Obama needs to have this uppermost in mind.

But will he? The Republicans, now almost dominant in Congress, will favour Petraeus over Obama, and if he tailors his strategy to suit his generals he will betray any prospect of peace and stability. Since that will involve still more military spending it will not help the economy. Failure to make peace in Afghanistan will also risk increased tensions with Pakistan or Iran or both. Obama will further alienate his Democratic base and strengthen that of the Republicans for 2012. If you have to be a one-time president, Mr Obama, at least make sure your legacy is worth it.

The writer is Pakistan's former envoy to the US and India.
Email: ashrafjqazi@yahoo.com