fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
US strategy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan
By Palvasha von Hassell
11/3/2007
There is an astounding degree of ignorance in the West on the consequences for Pakistan of the U.N.-sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This holds true not just for the man in the street, who may be excused for his lapse, but for educated circles from professionals to politicians. Pakistan is perceived first and foremost as the country in whose territory elements of Taliban and Al Qaeda take sanctuary when hunted in Afghanistan, and where training camps for suicide bombers exist. Its leaders are good or bad to the extent that they help the US-led "War on Terror". The foreign forces in Afghanistan are seen as fighting extremists who are to be prevented from seizing power across the border in Islamabad and exercising control over the country's nuclear weapons. What this dangerously simplistic view blots out is the fact that it is precisely those Western forces that are supposed to obstruct the ascendancy of extremists in Pakisan that are creating the conditions there that is conducive to extremism
The extent of this conscious or unconscious lack of insight in those who claim to know better than others what is good for them can only be explained in terms of the fact that the educated Western person does not apply the same criteria in judging others as he would have others apply to him. That is, he is not prepared to accord people living in certain parts of the world the same rights as he himself enjoys. If he did, could not support his government's actions if it meant the violation of those people's human rights, such as civilian deaths, regardless of where and under what system they lived. Anti-Islam sentiment is so high in Europe that groups like the Taliban are seen as monsters that should be wiped out. What is overlookeed is that as soon as this task is taken up by the West, with all its killing of innocent civilians, the local population will side with the Taliban, or whoever opposes the invaders. That the sophisticated Europeans should be ignoring this simple psychological fact is testimony to the dangerous influence and attraction of the Bush administration's undeliberated militaristic approach to world politics.
Enlisted to assist in Washington's grand plan to establish its military presence in the region and Afghanistan in particular, the Pakistan Army has been forced to take military action against militants operating from FATA. This has had grim consequences, for the result has been a rising tide of anti-Americanism and resentment across all sections of the population. Some have been radicalized to the extent of blowing themselves up. The mushrooming of suicide bombings targeting government and security officials and causing hundreds of fatalities can be traced to the toppling of the Taliban regime in 2001. For Pakistan, this is a new phenomenon for which we have to thank the Western forces operating in Afghanistan.
The damage to the image of the army which has ensued as a result is regrettable. A country's army is there to defend its borders, not to gun down its own people. The badly-handled Jamia Hafsa affair added to its unpopularity, its actions read by Pakistanis of all hues as dictated by Washington, whether in Islamabad or in FATA. This erosion of respect for the army can have grave consequences for Pakistan's internal stability. It is remarkable how Pakistanis are expected to put up with being ordered around and killed if necessary to enable a misguided world power to achieve its ends next door. The only way to shock people into realizing the double standard that is involved in such expectations is to ask them how they would feel if, for instance, the German army were expected to take military action in, say, Bavaria, which would kill many Germans. Unthinkable, of course.
It is against these odds that Pakistan is supposed to attempt a new experiment in democracy. But are its future leaders to be answerable to their voters or to Washington? Pakistan is the land of the possible, and as this incredible drama unfolds in which exiled politicians return one by one to take their chances in the event of surviving a terrorist attack, one wonders at the resilience of this country and its people. How a general election is to be held in the prevailing security situation, however, is entirely unclear.
Meanwhile, amid daily reports of strikes against militants by the American-led coalition in Afghanistan, there are signs that the Americans might be looking for an exit strategy from the Afghan quagmire. At a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Holland called recently by Washington, the member nations were urged to provide, not more soldiers, but more military trainers for the Afghan army. NATO's only chance of success, it is believed, is to train native Afghan security forces to defend areas from which the Taliban have been driven and to which they might return. At the same time, Washington is encouraging dialogue between Taliban groups and the Karzai government. However, considering the span of time required to train an army large enough to ensure security in Afghanistan and eradicate poppy cultivation plus reconcile enough militants to matter, even if this were all possible in the first place, we are nowhere near peace on the Durand Line. Even the much-vaunted American multi-million dollar plan for socio-economic uplift of the tribal areas will only be part of the solution; economic well-being can never replace political empowerment, as the case of Saudi Arabia shows. The West's quest for long-term security in the region will remain unfulfilled unless the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are given the political freedom that democracy brings with it, even if it means an end to foreign interference.
The writer is a Cambridge-educated analyst and journalist based in Hamburg, Germany. Email: [email protected]
By Palvasha von Hassell
11/3/2007
There is an astounding degree of ignorance in the West on the consequences for Pakistan of the U.N.-sanctioned invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This holds true not just for the man in the street, who may be excused for his lapse, but for educated circles from professionals to politicians. Pakistan is perceived first and foremost as the country in whose territory elements of Taliban and Al Qaeda take sanctuary when hunted in Afghanistan, and where training camps for suicide bombers exist. Its leaders are good or bad to the extent that they help the US-led "War on Terror". The foreign forces in Afghanistan are seen as fighting extremists who are to be prevented from seizing power across the border in Islamabad and exercising control over the country's nuclear weapons. What this dangerously simplistic view blots out is the fact that it is precisely those Western forces that are supposed to obstruct the ascendancy of extremists in Pakisan that are creating the conditions there that is conducive to extremism
The extent of this conscious or unconscious lack of insight in those who claim to know better than others what is good for them can only be explained in terms of the fact that the educated Western person does not apply the same criteria in judging others as he would have others apply to him. That is, he is not prepared to accord people living in certain parts of the world the same rights as he himself enjoys. If he did, could not support his government's actions if it meant the violation of those people's human rights, such as civilian deaths, regardless of where and under what system they lived. Anti-Islam sentiment is so high in Europe that groups like the Taliban are seen as monsters that should be wiped out. What is overlookeed is that as soon as this task is taken up by the West, with all its killing of innocent civilians, the local population will side with the Taliban, or whoever opposes the invaders. That the sophisticated Europeans should be ignoring this simple psychological fact is testimony to the dangerous influence and attraction of the Bush administration's undeliberated militaristic approach to world politics.
Enlisted to assist in Washington's grand plan to establish its military presence in the region and Afghanistan in particular, the Pakistan Army has been forced to take military action against militants operating from FATA. This has had grim consequences, for the result has been a rising tide of anti-Americanism and resentment across all sections of the population. Some have been radicalized to the extent of blowing themselves up. The mushrooming of suicide bombings targeting government and security officials and causing hundreds of fatalities can be traced to the toppling of the Taliban regime in 2001. For Pakistan, this is a new phenomenon for which we have to thank the Western forces operating in Afghanistan.
The damage to the image of the army which has ensued as a result is regrettable. A country's army is there to defend its borders, not to gun down its own people. The badly-handled Jamia Hafsa affair added to its unpopularity, its actions read by Pakistanis of all hues as dictated by Washington, whether in Islamabad or in FATA. This erosion of respect for the army can have grave consequences for Pakistan's internal stability. It is remarkable how Pakistanis are expected to put up with being ordered around and killed if necessary to enable a misguided world power to achieve its ends next door. The only way to shock people into realizing the double standard that is involved in such expectations is to ask them how they would feel if, for instance, the German army were expected to take military action in, say, Bavaria, which would kill many Germans. Unthinkable, of course.
It is against these odds that Pakistan is supposed to attempt a new experiment in democracy. But are its future leaders to be answerable to their voters or to Washington? Pakistan is the land of the possible, and as this incredible drama unfolds in which exiled politicians return one by one to take their chances in the event of surviving a terrorist attack, one wonders at the resilience of this country and its people. How a general election is to be held in the prevailing security situation, however, is entirely unclear.
Meanwhile, amid daily reports of strikes against militants by the American-led coalition in Afghanistan, there are signs that the Americans might be looking for an exit strategy from the Afghan quagmire. At a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Holland called recently by Washington, the member nations were urged to provide, not more soldiers, but more military trainers for the Afghan army. NATO's only chance of success, it is believed, is to train native Afghan security forces to defend areas from which the Taliban have been driven and to which they might return. At the same time, Washington is encouraging dialogue between Taliban groups and the Karzai government. However, considering the span of time required to train an army large enough to ensure security in Afghanistan and eradicate poppy cultivation plus reconcile enough militants to matter, even if this were all possible in the first place, we are nowhere near peace on the Durand Line. Even the much-vaunted American multi-million dollar plan for socio-economic uplift of the tribal areas will only be part of the solution; economic well-being can never replace political empowerment, as the case of Saudi Arabia shows. The West's quest for long-term security in the region will remain unfulfilled unless the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are given the political freedom that democracy brings with it, even if it means an end to foreign interference.
The writer is a Cambridge-educated analyst and journalist based in Hamburg, Germany. Email: [email protected]
