ANALYSIS: Preparing to beat a retreat? —Najmuddin A Shaikh
We should note that the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), the influential think tank at which President Zardari spoke last Friday, has said in its annual review that “Pakistan remained the biggest source of instability for Afghanistan”
The publication in the Washington Post of a redacted version of General Stanley McChrystal’s report on the situation in Afghanistan and the strategy he proposes the US and NATO should now follow contained little that had not been known earlier. Its publication has however triggered a fresh debate and fresh revelations on the differences within the inner circles of the Obama administration on what needs to be done next.
McChrystal has meanwhile been told in various ways that he should hold off on sending his recommendations on the additional troops he would need to be able to implement the strategy he proposes until President Obama and his national security team have determined what strategy they intend to follow.
The position of the US military seems clear. Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told Congress probably at the cost of displeasing leading members of the Obama administration that “a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces” and that “it’s very clear to me that we will need more resources.”
General David Petraeus, speaking in London, conceded that the Taliban had expanded their influence maintaining that “they benefit from reasonable freedom of movement in border areas, funding their activities from the narcotics industry and donations”. Acknowledging that the challenges in Afghanistan are significant, he maintained that the stakes are also high, and while the situation unquestionably is serious, “the mission is still do-able”. Implicit was the fact that more resources would be needed.
His sentiments were echoed by the new chief of the British Army, Gen Richards, who maintained that “defeat for allied forces in Afghanistan would have an ‘intoxicating impact’ on extremists around the world” and that defeat could have an ‘alienating and potentially catalytic effect” on millions of Afghans.
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates too, in most of his cautiously worded statements, seemed to endorse the need for more troops in Afghanistan even while maintaining that McChrystal’s review was a “pre-decisional” recommendation and that several meetings would be summoned by the President and several assessments would have to be completed before a final decision was made.
On the political front however the situation is very far from accepting the logic of the military leaders. The Republicans for the most part are supportive of a strategy that would have the US stay the course in Afghanistan but they are now insistent that Obama articulate his policy clearly and have McChrystal appear before Congress to defend it. The Democrats on the other hand offer little support for any additional troop deployments even while being supportive of the proposals for expanding the Afghan security forces. Significantly Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the house has made it clear that in her view there was not a “great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in the Congress.”
Similarly Rep John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s defence sub-panel, and Michigan Sen Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, have both made clear their opposition to any additional troop deployment.
All this is being driven at least in part by public opinion polls that show a majority of Americans being opposed to any additional troops being sent to Afghanistan. Commentaries by leading figures of the security community, questioning the logic of an additional effort in Afghanistan where the election has turned out to be a fiasco and which in any case no longer plays host to Al Qaeda have further heightened the disquiet.
It seems that Vice President Biden’s suggestion that the main point of effort should now be Pakistan appears to be gaining traction. Newspaper reports suggest that Biden has argued that some thirty dollars are being spent in Afghanistan for every dollar spent in Pakistan and yet it is from Pakistan that Al Qaeda operates and it is in Pakistan-based camps that potential terrorists receive their training.
His proposal apparently is that while there be a holding operation in Afghanistan with the troops already present there, more political, diplomatic and monetary measures be deployed to persuade Pakistan to eliminate the extremists and with them the Al Qaeda safe havens in the tribal areas.
In his speech at the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, President Obama reiterated his oft stated position that “We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies” and that “We will permit no safe haven for Al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow”.
Significantly he said nothing further about Afghanistan beyond the assertion that “In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we and many nations here are helping these governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, (of disrupting, dismantling and defeating the Al Qaeda) while working to advance opportunity and security for their people”.
It is too early to say that a firm policy direction has been set but it is clear that every one is agreed on the need to build the Afghan security forces (240,000 for the Afghan National Army and 160,000 for the Afghan national police). It is also clear that wildly optimistic estimates are being made about how quickly such a force can be raised and trained. It is clear that little or no attention will be paid in this process to ensuring that an ethnic balance is maintained to ensure that the Afghan Army is truly national and continues to enjoy the respect it currently has among the Afghan people.
It is clear also that with the present troop levels or with additional troops, NATO forces will be concentrated in the population centres and the sparsely populated remote areas bordering Pakistan will be left at the mercy of the Taliban. It follows that Pakistan’s current complaints about the absence of border check posts on the Afghan side to prevent infiltration will multiply but paradoxically this will lead to a greater demand for Pakistan to do more to eliminate the sanctuaries that the Afghan Taliban enjoy particularly along Afghanistan’s eastern border with Pakistan.
We should note that the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), the influential think tank at which President Zardari spoke last Friday, has said in its annual review that “Pakistan remained the biggest source of instability for Afghanistan.”
We should note also that in a recent interview to Free Internet Press, Ambassador Patterson talked of the differences between Pakistan and the US on the treatment accorded to various groups of Afghan Taliban stating that “Where we differ, of course, is the treatment of the groups who are attacking our troops in Afghanistan. And that comes down to Haqqani and Gul Bahadur and Nazir, to a lesser extent Hekmatyar...”
She identified the Haqqani group as the biggest threat in Afghanistan, which has “shown the ability to reach all the way to Kabul with these huge attacks, which not only kill loads of people but are also politically destabilising.” She conceded that “the Pakistanis don’t have the capacity to go after some of these groups” and that Siraj Haqqani controls vast swathes of territory in North Waziristan where he has been implanted for many years. While she said that Pakistan has taken more actions against these groups than was generally known, the end picture that emerged from the interview was that Americans believe that Pakistan is still playing footsie with the Afghan Taliban.
Is this really our policy? Do we understand what the creation of a largely Tajik 240,000 strong Afghan National Army will mean for our security calculus or what effect the continued unrest in Afghanistan will have on our efforts to cleanse our body politic of the pernicious Taliban influence to which it has been subject for the last 15 years?
The writer is a former foreign secretary
last para above - very ominous prediction!
. Then why bother placing bets on these ********. The old guard of NA would have to step down and the organization would have to undergo some massive reorganization in order to fight away the Talibs. The best option for the lower rank personnel would be to join with the Pastuns in the Afghan army and have some more national spirit to trump ethnic rivalries.
