پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 21, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
Is the sway of the US drones over? Will US troops stop landing in Pakistan and shooting people, many of which turned out to be women and children. The US may stop the attacks. yes pigs can fly with our without lipstick.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
Recently -- and naively -- Donald Camp, the U.S.’s deputy assistant secretary of state, said there is no situation in which the U.S. and Pakistan will shoot at each other. That view ignores the role Islamic thinking plays in Pakistan’s military and among a sizable portion of the population. There are no guarantees that Pakistan will see things America’s way, and it is possible Islamabad could change course for our worse.
That’s why America’s new strategy regarding Pakistan must go beyond talk. It must deal with substantive issues that threaten to push the region into war, like the long-term tensions between Pakistan and India which have festered to near blows in the recent past. Human Events dot com
Zardari deplores U.S. intrusions in Pak soil Updated at: 0825 PST, Tuesday, September 23, 2008
NEW YORK: Calling the fight against terrorists as Pakistan’s war, President Asif Ali Zardari has asked American troops to stay away and leave the Pakistani forces to do the job. “Our orders are clear: not to allow any incursion of anybody in Pakistan.
American troops are coming, without letting us know, without Pakistan’s permission, they are violating the United Nations Charter,” he said in a television interview Monday.
The president said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
The president voiced the confidence that the country would be able to defeat the menace of terrorism with the cooperation of its anti-terrorism partners.
“Pakistan is capable (of fighting terrorism) with the help of the world, yes we are capable,” he told news channel in an interview.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Will US drone shooting change the Afghan war?
پاکستاان لیجر | PAKISTAN LEDGER | پاکستاني کھاتا |Sept. 23rd, 08 | Moin Ansari | معین آنصآرّی |
On May 1st, 1960 an American U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union. Ironically the U2 took off from the Badabare US Airforce base near Peshawar. At first the US denied it. When it finally accepted that the existence of the plane , it was too late, Gary Powell, the spy plane's pilot had already spilled the beans."the incident was a great embarrassment to the United States and prompted a marked deterioration in its relations with the Soviet Union."
In July 1957, Pakistani Prime Minister Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy was requested by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower of his government's agreement for the U.S. to establish a secret U.S. intelligence facility in Pakistan and permission for the U-2 spyplane to fly from Pakistan. A facility established in Badaber, 10 miles (16 km) from Peshawar, was a cover for a major communications intercept operation run by the American National Security Agency (NSA). Badaber was an excellent choice because of its proximity to Soviet Central Asia. This enabled monitoring of missile test sites and other communications. U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force portion of the Peshawar airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation. Wikipedia
A lot of water has gone down the Potomac, the Indus and the Volga since those days when Pakistan was part of SEATO, CENTO and had two executive defense agreements with the USA.
Americans will selective amnesia have forgotten all that. Who cares if Pakistan assisted the US for 60 years and all through the cold war. Who cares if Pakistan risked nuclear annihilation. Ingrates don't remember favors. Bagram Airforce base in Afghanistan and all of Afghanistan was simply a Soviet colony at the time. After a direct threat from Kruschev, and President Ayub Khan realized that he wanted "Friends no Masters" the Badabare Airforce base was closed. In 1965 the US imposed an arms embargo on Pakistan.
Precisely 14 years later when Pakistan needed help against India, the 7th fleet headed towards to the Bay of Bangal didn't quite have the warp power to reach Chittagong before December 16th 1971. That date and the whereabouts of the 7th fleet are etched in the minds of all Pakistanis who were alive on December 16th, 1971.
Ingrates don't remember favors. Richard Armitage on September 11th 2001 informed the then president that "he would bomb Pakistan to the stone age" if it did not agree to the seven demands that he had presented. When reminded of history of the US-Pakistan relations, he said "history begins today"-- letting Musharraf and the Pakistan nation know in no uncertain terms that this was a transactional relationship.
Fast forward to September 23rd, 2008. A US had been shot down in Pakistan. This one did not take off from Pakistani territory to spy on Russia. This one took off from Bagram Airforce base Afghanistan to spy on Pakistani territory. the purpose of the drone was not only to spy but also to bomb Paksitani territory.
NEW YORK: An influential United Stated newspaper on Monday cautioned the Bush administration against attacks inside Pakistani territory and called for devising a policy to bolster Pakistan’s civilian government while enlisting its full support in the fight against extremists.Pakistan News reporting on the New York Times article
The impact of this "crash" may be very profound. It may signal that the Pakistanis have developed the technology to shoot down drones. If so, the US war in Afghanistan will face new challenges. The tide shifted against the USSR after Charlie Wilson introduced the Stinger missiles in Afghanistan. After the introduction of the Stingers no Soviet chopper was safe in Afghan air.
The president [Zardari] said Pakistan will ask any American troops crossing into its territory to leave and was confident that they would go.
Pakistan, he said, has a strong commitment to fight terrorism but only its troops have the responsibility to take anti-terror actions on its soil and any foreign troops crossing into its territory violate the U.N. Charter.
Is this drone shooting a seminal event. The events which will unfold in the next few weeks will inform the world if another drone "crashes". If so, GWOT is in real trouble and Pakistan's help in the war will become more important.
Of course, Mullen is very aware of Pakistan’s counter leverage. Most U.S. supplies for Afghanistan must flow through Pakistani ports and roads. Any interference with this access would jeopardize our operations. Additionally, the U.S. military needs a cooperative Pakistani armed forces and intelligence services to work along the Afghan border if the insurgency is to be stopped.
That’s why -- for mutually beneficial reasons -- both nations must put aside their differences before the situation gets out of hand. But America also must be realistic about Pakistan.
US drone 'crashes in Pakistan'
A suspected US drone aircraft has crashed in northwest Pakistan's South Waziristan region, according to Pakistani security officials and media reports.
"A pilotless spy plane, we believe it is US, crashed in Pakistani territory but it did not disintegrate," a senior Pakistani security official said on Tuesday.
"Tribesmen picked it up and then Pakistani security forces retrieved it. No firing was heard in the area so there is no question of it being shot down."
Christian Patterson, a US military spokesman in Afghanistan, said officials were investigating the reports.
Wreckage found
Lieutenant Colonel Mark Wright, a US Pentagon spokesman, said the CIA had "no reports of any loss of DoD (Department of Defence) drones," on Tuesday.
Dawn News, one of several Pakistani channels reporting the incident, said security forces had found the wreckage of the drone 8km from Angor Adda, near the village of Jalal Khel, and 3km from the border with Afghanistan.
US commandos launched a ground assault on September 3 in Angor Adda, which Pakistani officials said killed 20 people, including women and children.
The incident is likely to add to tensions between Washington and Pakistan
following a spate of recent American cross-border incursions and drone attacks targeting suspected fighters.
Pakistani sovereignty
George Bush, the US president, said in New York on Tuesday that Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan's president visiting the country, had spoken strongly about protecting Pakistani sovereignty.
"Your words have been very strong about Pakistan's sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country, and the United States wants to help," Bush said before meeting Zardari.
Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said on Tuesday that Washington would continue to take military action in Pakistan and called for co-operation from the government in Islamabad.
"I think it is essential for Pakistan to be a willing partner in any strategy we have to deal with the threat coming out of the western part of Pakistan and the eastern part of Afghanistan," Gates said, expressing hope for "an even stronger partnership" with Zardari.
Pakistan's support is regarded as crucial to the success of US-led forces trying to stabilise Afghanistan and fight al-Qaeda in the region.
Mounting anger
But Pakistanis have become increasing angered over the heightened use of drones and ground units in the area bordering Afghanistan.
Pakistanis were outraged by the US September 3 raid - the first known ground assault by US troops into Pakistan - and the six-month-old civilian government issued a diplomatic protest.
General Ashfaq Kayani, Pakistan's army chief, said foreign troops would not be allowed on Pakistani soil and Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity would be defended at all costs.
Residents and some security officers said Pakistani troops fired on two US helicopters that crossed the border near Angor Adda a week ago, forcing them to turn back.
Pakistan and the United States denied the reports.
Monday, April 7, 2008
The 3 factors inhibiting Afghan peace
Calling the Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" is an attempt to shift the blame on Pakistan. Calling all the Afghan insurgents "Taliban" is a brazen attempt to nullify a popular uprising against foreign occupation. As an analogy it is like calling the Cherokee, Lakota, Shawnee, Pawnee, Chickashe, Choctow etc as "Indians".
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Pakistan's western front Tuesday, April 08, 2008 Zeenia Satti
Three factors jeopardized Pakistan's security on the western front.
a) Musharraf allowed military action against Afghanistan from Pakistan's soil without first sealing its western border.
b) NATO failed to reconstruct Afghanistan, which rendered its occupation illegitimate and produced an inevitable domestic insurgency for end to occupation.
c) During the war that followed, the Taliban's vengeance, Washington's displeasure with Pakistan's nuclear weapons, Indo-Afghan irredentist claims over Pakistan's territory, each found FATA to be an easy conduit of furtherance of their respective designs. Furthermore, the Musharraf regime's domestic legitimacy gap rendered it vulnerable to a myriad of political and military onslaughts, producing an international uproar, often orchestrated, that Pakistan was a failed state and a dangerous nation.
The three factors cited above will overwhelm Islamabad unless it changes its western-front policy. Musharraf cites Washington's threat of bombing Pakistan into the stone age as the reason for his Afghan policy turnabout in 2001. Pakistan's participation in the post-9/11 Afghan war on Washington's terms has taken it close to the brink of disaster. Paradoxically, this very position has equipped Islamabad with the bargaining chips vis a vis the US that it did not possess soon after 9/11. The rapidly decreasing support in the US for Bush's war in Iraq would end entirely if Iraq's insurgents started launching terrorist attacks inside American cities. By the same token, due to countrywide terror attacks, Pakistan's capacity to win greater US acceptance for a more nationalist policy regarding the "war on terror" is now increased.
The strategic context of the Afghan insurgency has been misrepresented by Washington. It states that the Taliban are regrouping in FATA and launching attacks in Afghanistan, thus frustrating ISAF's reconstruction efforts. The western media's scrutiny of Afghan insurgent battles, on the other hand, reveals that the insurgency is spread all over Afghanistan and appears to be without a centralized head. It stems from local hatred due to high civilian casualty rate and disproportionate use of force by US troops in Afghanistan. The fact that acceptable levels of security, prosperity and political identity have not been provided to the Afghans during their six-year-long occupation has augmented local antagonism. This is the strategic context of the Afghan insurgency. It is not cross border terrorism. For as long as the strategic context remains, insurgency will dominate the Afghan scene regardless of FATA's assistance. Furthermore, it will be sustained by tactical, small unit leadership, even if Pak army decimates the Taliban altogether.
The US has chosen to call Afghan insurgency the "Taliban resurgence" in order to shift the blame to Pakistan. The only centralized feature of the insurgency is its target; i.e. NATO troops and the Karzai regime. The terror on Pakistani soil may be the centralized work of the Taliban. The same cannot be said of suicide attacks in Afghanistan. It can be concluded that warlord politics in Afghanistan has been replaced by widespread insurgency against western occupation. Because a unified Afghanistan exists as the final reference point of political identity, it could inspire networking amongst insurgents. In calling the insurgents "Taliban" the US is turning away from the agonizing truth. For strategic clarity, the Afghan insurgents have to be de linked from one particular entity and named what they were named during the Soviet Afghan war; i.e. Afghan Mujahideen. The argument that ISAF and Karzai are unable to provide prosperity because of the insurgency is mooted by the time line of the insurgency. It rose slowly as a response to occupied mismanagement. Up to 2004, there was no insurgency.
On Pakistan's front, Washington and Karzai have jeered at Musharraf's every offer of securing the border. Land mines were dismissed on grounds that they were immoral. Barbed wiring was opposed on grounds that it will divide the Pushtun nation! The second objection is tantamount to telling Pakistan "heads you lose, tales we win". The only option presented to Pakistan is internecine warfare on its Pushtun lands, which will turn Pakistan's first line of defence on its western border, the Pushtuns, squarely against Islamabad and render the eastern border insecure due to military's preoccupation with the west. Pakistan need not discuss its border security with Afghanistan or Washington. It needs to decide this matter in its own vital interest, which lies in halting border fluidity on the western front and changing FATA's administrative environment in which crime functions with impunity.
The roughly 800-mile extended Afghan-FATA border has become a conduit of destabilization of Pakistan. Washington's global war on terror should be a campaign against all terrorists, not just those actively targeting the US On this point, Pakistan should elicit Washington's cooperation for its nationalist policy on the "war on terror", which it must implement with the same firmness that Turkey has recently shown on its border with Iraq. This policy should rest on FATA's administrative amalgamation in to NWFP and the physical sealing of Pak-Afghan border, in that order.
State's writ must prevail in FATA. We no longer live in the strategic environment that necessitates parity of force. Terror strikes all over Pakistan and 9/11 testify to the fact that a state's conventional power and its nuclear weapons are of no consequence in dealing with manoeuvre warfare. In such a milieu, an accessory of the nature of FATA and an open border with a restive state under occupation are strategic blunders Pakistan can ill afford. Not only is latest weaponry in abundant supply in FATA, the resurgence of Afghan drug trade under U.S occupation means lethal drugs and black money too is in abundant supply. Pakistani society, including FATA's population, should not be left exposed to this sinister combination. Incremental administrative changes in FATA will not solve the problem. Fundamental reorientation in the nation's best interest is required.
The writer is energy consultant and analyst of energy geopolitics based in Washington DC. Email: zeenia.satti@ yahoo.com
Friday, April 4, 2008
Exiting Afghanistan?
There are a lot of promises on existing Iraq, but none on Afghanistan. The Dems have promised a transfer of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. What impact odes it have on Pakistan and South Asia.
An exit strategy in Afghanistan, By Patrick Seale, Special to Gulf News
April 04, 2008, 00:44
Last Monday, two British Marines and one Danish soldier were killed in a firefight with Taliban guerrillas in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. This brought the number of international soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year to over 30.
For what noble cause have these young men died?
At their summit meeting in Bucharest this week, Nato heads of state have discussed how to boost the alliance's war effort in Afghanistan. They should instead have debated how to reach a peace settlement with the insurgents - and how to get out.
Nato has evidently got itself into a colossal muddle in Afghanistan. Everything that could possibly go wrong has gone wrong. It is far from clear why the alliance is fighting there at all, and what it is seeking to achieve. Talk of "victory" is a dangerous illusion.
In 2003, there were 20,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. By 2007, this number had trebled to 60,000 - and is shortly to increase further with the arrival of another 3,200 US Marines and a further 1,000 French soldiers. Has this vast increase in troop levels brought added security to the country? Is peace breaking out? Are reconstruction and development of the war-torn country progressing? Has opium growing been eradicated, or at least curbed? Alas, quite the contrary.
Violence and deaths have increased steadily over the past five years, with attacks on foreign troops now running at a rate of 500 a month. In 2007, there were no fewer than 140 suicide attacks - the most dreaded and lethal form of attack. As Westerners are often targeted, they live in fear, restrict their movements and therefore cannot help much with reconstruction and development. Far from being eradicated, opium production has increased year by year and narco-traffic is booming.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Afghanistan knows that this is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, profoundly attached to its customs and traditions. What most Afghans have in common is pride and a fierce attachment to their country - as well as a visceral hatred of foreign domination. This was a lesson the British learned to their cost in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 1980s. It is a lesson the US and its Nato allies are painfully learning in their turn.
A leading French expert on Afghanistan, Professor Gilles Dorronsoro, believes that Nato's key blunder has been the attempt to impose a Western model of modernisation on Afghanistan, where it is inevitably seen as a foreign import. The goals of democracy, of a market economy and of gender equality may be embraced by a small elite in Kabul, but are rejected in much of the countryside, where they face incomprehension and hostility.
President Hamid Karzai's state is a fiction. It controls only 30 per cent of the territory - the rest is in the hands of warlords or insurgents - and has only a tenuous grip on the economy.
In Afghanistan, fundamentalist Islam is a form of nationalism. The two are indistinguishable. The West may seek to demonise the Taliban as medieval barbarians, alien to Afghan society. The truth, however, would seem to be that they are very much a home-bred product. Although originally almost exclusively Pashtun, the insurgency has now spread beyond the Pashtun areas, pointing to the Taliban's growing support.
In 2006-7, there was a notable change of sentiment in Afghanistan. The idea took hold that Nato and the Americans were losing the war. This alone should have persuaded the heads of state gathered in Bucharest this week that it was time to bring this thankless neo-colonial military adventure to a close.
An astonishing statistic is that American forces in Afghanistan cost the American tax-payer $100m a day - or, currently, $36bn a year. So far, since 2001, the US has spent $127bn on the war in Afghanistan. One can only weep at such a waste of resources.
In contrast, total international aid to Afghanistan - on which the Kabul government depends for 90 per cent of its expenditure - has averaged only $7m a day since 2001. Half the promised aid has failed to arrive - there is a $5bn shortfall - while two-third of the aid was not channelled through government institutions at all.
A lot of it was squandered inefficiently or was diverted into private pockets. The result has been an explosion of corruption, which may be observed in million-dollar houses in Kabul.
These facts and figures are taken from a recent report by Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR), which has the difficult task of coordinating the work of 94 non-governmental organisations working in Afghanistan.
What the ACBAR report makes damningly clear is that some 40 per cent of the aid money finds its way back to the donor countries, one way or another, mainly in the form of salaries to expatriates. An expatriate consultant can cost between $250,000 and $500,000 a year.
Local opposition
If seeking to impose a Western model on Afghanistan has aroused local opposition, another even greater source of hostility is the large-scale use of air strikes, especially by American forces. Millions of tonnes of bombs have been dropped on Afghanistan in pursuit of a policy of "killing the enemy".
These have inevitably caused the death of hundreds of Afghan civilians and much material "collateral damage". Breaking into homes, ignoring local customs and showing disrespect for ordinary Afghans has also created immense anger.
The result has been to bring large segments of the population over to the Taliban side. As in Iraq, far from pacifying the country, US strategy has created an enemy bent on revenge.
There is much talk in Washington these days of taking the war to the Taliban in the tribal areas of West Pakistan. Even Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential candidate and a stern critic of the Iraq war, has spoken of "cleaning out" Pakistan's tribal areas.
This is dangerous talk. Pakistan is seething with angry opposition to the Nato campaign in Afghanistan and, more generally, to US President George W. Bush's "war on terror". Some experts believe that a large-scale Western ground incursion into Pakistan's tribal areas could split the Pakistan army, bring down President General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, and put an end to any security cooperation with the West.
On a visit to Islamabad in late March, John Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State, was surprised to hear that the leaders of Pakistan's new coalition government - former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari - want talks with the Taliban rather than military strikes.
"One is dealing with irreconcilable elements who want to destroy our very way of life. I don't see how you can talk with those kinds of people," Negroponte was quoted as saying. It would be in Nato's, and Washington's, interest to find out -and the sooner the better.
An exit strategy in Afghanistan, By Patrick Seale, Special to Gulf News
April 04, 2008, 00:44
Last Monday, two British Marines and one Danish soldier were killed in a firefight with Taliban guerrillas in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. This brought the number of international soldiers killed in Afghanistan this year to over 30.
For what noble cause have these young men died?
At their summit meeting in Bucharest this week, Nato heads of state have discussed how to boost the alliance's war effort in Afghanistan. They should instead have debated how to reach a peace settlement with the insurgents - and how to get out.
Nato has evidently got itself into a colossal muddle in Afghanistan. Everything that could possibly go wrong has gone wrong. It is far from clear why the alliance is fighting there at all, and what it is seeking to achieve. Talk of "victory" is a dangerous illusion.
In 2003, there were 20,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. By 2007, this number had trebled to 60,000 - and is shortly to increase further with the arrival of another 3,200 US Marines and a further 1,000 French soldiers. Has this vast increase in troop levels brought added security to the country? Is peace breaking out? Are reconstruction and development of the war-torn country progressing? Has opium growing been eradicated, or at least curbed? Alas, quite the contrary.
Violence and deaths have increased steadily over the past five years, with attacks on foreign troops now running at a rate of 500 a month. In 2007, there were no fewer than 140 suicide attacks - the most dreaded and lethal form of attack. As Westerners are often targeted, they live in fear, restrict their movements and therefore cannot help much with reconstruction and development. Far from being eradicated, opium production has increased year by year and narco-traffic is booming.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of Afghanistan knows that this is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, profoundly attached to its customs and traditions. What most Afghans have in common is pride and a fierce attachment to their country - as well as a visceral hatred of foreign domination. This was a lesson the British learned to their cost in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 1980s. It is a lesson the US and its Nato allies are painfully learning in their turn.
A leading French expert on Afghanistan, Professor Gilles Dorronsoro, believes that Nato's key blunder has been the attempt to impose a Western model of modernisation on Afghanistan, where it is inevitably seen as a foreign import. The goals of democracy, of a market economy and of gender equality may be embraced by a small elite in Kabul, but are rejected in much of the countryside, where they face incomprehension and hostility.
President Hamid Karzai's state is a fiction. It controls only 30 per cent of the territory - the rest is in the hands of warlords or insurgents - and has only a tenuous grip on the economy.
In Afghanistan, fundamentalist Islam is a form of nationalism. The two are indistinguishable. The West may seek to demonise the Taliban as medieval barbarians, alien to Afghan society. The truth, however, would seem to be that they are very much a home-bred product. Although originally almost exclusively Pashtun, the insurgency has now spread beyond the Pashtun areas, pointing to the Taliban's growing support.
In 2006-7, there was a notable change of sentiment in Afghanistan. The idea took hold that Nato and the Americans were losing the war. This alone should have persuaded the heads of state gathered in Bucharest this week that it was time to bring this thankless neo-colonial military adventure to a close.
An astonishing statistic is that American forces in Afghanistan cost the American tax-payer $100m a day - or, currently, $36bn a year. So far, since 2001, the US has spent $127bn on the war in Afghanistan. One can only weep at such a waste of resources.
In contrast, total international aid to Afghanistan - on which the Kabul government depends for 90 per cent of its expenditure - has averaged only $7m a day since 2001. Half the promised aid has failed to arrive - there is a $5bn shortfall - while two-third of the aid was not channelled through government institutions at all.
A lot of it was squandered inefficiently or was diverted into private pockets. The result has been an explosion of corruption, which may be observed in million-dollar houses in Kabul.
These facts and figures are taken from a recent report by Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR), which has the difficult task of coordinating the work of 94 non-governmental organisations working in Afghanistan.
What the ACBAR report makes damningly clear is that some 40 per cent of the aid money finds its way back to the donor countries, one way or another, mainly in the form of salaries to expatriates. An expatriate consultant can cost between $250,000 and $500,000 a year.
Local opposition
If seeking to impose a Western model on Afghanistan has aroused local opposition, another even greater source of hostility is the large-scale use of air strikes, especially by American forces. Millions of tonnes of bombs have been dropped on Afghanistan in pursuit of a policy of "killing the enemy".
These have inevitably caused the death of hundreds of Afghan civilians and much material "collateral damage". Breaking into homes, ignoring local customs and showing disrespect for ordinary Afghans has also created immense anger.
The result has been to bring large segments of the population over to the Taliban side. As in Iraq, far from pacifying the country, US strategy has created an enemy bent on revenge.
There is much talk in Washington these days of taking the war to the Taliban in the tribal areas of West Pakistan. Even Barack Obama, the leading Democratic presidential candidate and a stern critic of the Iraq war, has spoken of "cleaning out" Pakistan's tribal areas.
This is dangerous talk. Pakistan is seething with angry opposition to the Nato campaign in Afghanistan and, more generally, to US President George W. Bush's "war on terror". Some experts believe that a large-scale Western ground incursion into Pakistan's tribal areas could split the Pakistan army, bring down President General (retired) Pervez Musharraf, and put an end to any security cooperation with the West.
On a visit to Islamabad in late March, John Negroponte, the US Deputy Secretary of State, was surprised to hear that the leaders of Pakistan's new coalition government - former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari - want talks with the Taliban rather than military strikes.
"One is dealing with irreconcilable elements who want to destroy our very way of life. I don't see how you can talk with those kinds of people," Negroponte was quoted as saying. It would be in Nato's, and Washington's, interest to find out -and the sooner the better.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Russian mercy-line for NATO's Afghan defeat
The Russians are thumbing their noses at NATO and NATO expansion. I guess they are saying "I told you so".
In the face of NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukrain, the Russians are trying to create new options for NATO and trying to get some money.
NATO's defeat in Afghanistan is akin to the defeat at Maiwind for the British forces in 1880. Maiwind cleared the way for the ultimate departure of all British forces from Afghanistan in the "Back to the Indus" policy. Russia has had a very limited role in Afghanistan after the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 90s. Now Russia wants to get back into the game. The Russians want to resurrect a kind of "Yalta Conference" to address the future of Pakistan. To pressure Pakistan into agreeing to the demands, the Russians have indicated that they could provide a safe passage to goods and supplies through Afghanistan, for a price. This means that Pakistan would lose about $5 Billion per annum in transit fees and logistical support and Russia would make that amount for herself.
Please see the article published in Rupee News on "Inviting Russia Back: The Impact"
Karl Indurfurth is right. No American or NATO plans for Afghanistan will succeed without taking into account the Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in the Paksitani sphere of influence and no anti-Pakistani government in Kabul can hope to succeed without the blessings of Islamabad.
'Circle of freedom'
In a keynote speech hours before the two-day summit of the 26-nation alliance, Mr Bush said: "As [French] President Sarkozy put it in London last week, we cannot afford to lose Afghanistan.
If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil
President Bush
Ashdown's Afghanistan warning
"Whatever the cost, however difficult, we cannot afford it, we must win.
"If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil."
His attempts to rally new troops came as Lord Ashdown, the former UN envoy to Bosnia who was blocked from being UN envoy to Afghanistan by President Hamid Karzai, warned the Nato-led alliance was "getting pretty close" to losing control of the country.
Mr Bush arrived in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, late on Tuesday. He has since left to meet Romania's President Traian Basescu in the Black Sea resort of Constanta.
On the eve of his last Nato summit, Bush set out his agenda in a wide-ranging, half-hour speech.
In addition to asking for more troops, he also pushed for Nato's eastern expansion and appealed to Russia to drop opposition to US plans to establish missile defence installations in Nato members Poland and the Czech Republic.
President Bush said the "circle of freedom", as he put it, must be extended to include new Nato members from the Balkans.
He said invitations would be issued to Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to join Nato.
Russian bid to replace Pakistan as supply route: War in Afghanistan By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, April 1: At the Nato summit, which begins in Bucharest on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to offer an alternative route for supplying US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.
The proposal, if accepted, will change the course of the war in Afghanistan and will also have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan as Nato’s 43,000 troops in Afghanistan rely heavily on supplies transported via Pakistan.
Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Russian and Nato diplomats have already held a series of “productive and successful” talks on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land.
The plan, however, could later be expanded to include ammunition and light weapons as well, the sources said.
Russia’s new ambassador to Nato Dmitri Rogozin played a key role in selling this plan to the members of this US-led alliance, telling them that this will be a reliable alternative route free of violence and political troubles.
While America’s European allies have shown great interest in the proposal, the Americans are still reluctant as they do not want to bring Russia back to a region from where it was forcibly ousted in 1989, after battling Afghan freedom fighters (now Al Qaeda and Taliban militants) for almost 10 years.
Despite Washington’s reluctance, the Nato has held intensive talks with Russian officials on the precise routes to be used and hopes to reach agreement at this week’s summit in Bucharest.
If approved by the summit, the supplies can begin as soon as Nato wants as the Russians already have a functioning route passing through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Under the proposed agreement, Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a military alliance of former Soviet republics, will jointly guarantee an interrupted supply of essential goods to the Nato forces.
Western diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Nato sees the proposed route as a good alternative for supplies going through Pakistan which faces political uncertainty and may not be a reliable route for long.
The Pakistan route, according to these sources, passes through the Taliban-infested tribal zone and has become increasingly dangerous. Last Sunday, militants blew up a convoy of 36 oil tankers meant for US forces in Afghanistan.
Russian diplomats promoting their proposal also have underlined a so-called “crisis of trust” between the United States and Pakistan, where the new government plans to engage militants in a dialogue opposed by Washington.
They also argue that Russia has always had a strong interest in seeing the Nato mission in Afghanistan succeed because Moscow wants to prevent Muslim extremists enter the former Soviet republics.
But there are others in Washington who warn that an attempt to disassociate Pakistan from any plan for Afghanistan may have dangerous consequences.
In an article published on the eve of the Nato summit, Karl F. Inderfurth, a former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, describes Pakistan as “one country that can make or break (Nato’s) mission” in Afghanistan.
He notes that Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has promised to visit Islamabad as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place.
“After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce Nato’s Afghan mission,” says Mr Inderfurth while backing the proposed visit.
Mr Inderfurth urges Nato leaders to work on a “new compact” that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan’s political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralise regional and great power rivalries.
To attain this, he proposed an UN-sponsored, a high-level conference of all Afghanistan’s neighbours and concerned major powers for talks on a multilateral accord that addresses Pakistan’s concerns about developments in Afghanistan.
The proposed accord should recognise Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan, pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, recognise Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state and establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan.
Mr Inderfurth also warns that any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests.
Instead, he urges working with Pakistan’s new leadership to integrate the tribal region into the Pakistani political system and provide substantial assistance to build up their economy and social infrastructure.
In the face of NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukrain, the Russians are trying to create new options for NATO and trying to get some money.
NATO's defeat in Afghanistan is akin to the defeat at Maiwind for the British forces in 1880. Maiwind cleared the way for the ultimate departure of all British forces from Afghanistan in the "Back to the Indus" policy. Russia has had a very limited role in Afghanistan after the defeat of the USSR in Afghanistan in the 90s. Now Russia wants to get back into the game. The Russians want to resurrect a kind of "Yalta Conference" to address the future of Pakistan. To pressure Pakistan into agreeing to the demands, the Russians have indicated that they could provide a safe passage to goods and supplies through Afghanistan, for a price. This means that Pakistan would lose about $5 Billion per annum in transit fees and logistical support and Russia would make that amount for herself.
Please see the article published in Rupee News on "Inviting Russia Back: The Impact"
Karl Indurfurth is right. No American or NATO plans for Afghanistan will succeed without taking into account the Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in the Paksitani sphere of influence and no anti-Pakistani government in Kabul can hope to succeed without the blessings of Islamabad.
'Circle of freedom'
In a keynote speech hours before the two-day summit of the 26-nation alliance, Mr Bush said: "As [French] President Sarkozy put it in London last week, we cannot afford to lose Afghanistan.
If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil
President Bush
Ashdown's Afghanistan warning
"Whatever the cost, however difficult, we cannot afford it, we must win.
"If we do not defeat the terrorists in Afghanistan, we will face them on our soil."
His attempts to rally new troops came as Lord Ashdown, the former UN envoy to Bosnia who was blocked from being UN envoy to Afghanistan by President Hamid Karzai, warned the Nato-led alliance was "getting pretty close" to losing control of the country.
Mr Bush arrived in the Romanian capital, Bucharest, late on Tuesday. He has since left to meet Romania's President Traian Basescu in the Black Sea resort of Constanta.
On the eve of his last Nato summit, Bush set out his agenda in a wide-ranging, half-hour speech.
In addition to asking for more troops, he also pushed for Nato's eastern expansion and appealed to Russia to drop opposition to US plans to establish missile defence installations in Nato members Poland and the Czech Republic.
President Bush said the "circle of freedom", as he put it, must be extended to include new Nato members from the Balkans.
He said invitations would be issued to Albania, Croatia and Macedonia to join Nato.
Russian bid to replace Pakistan as supply route: War in Afghanistan By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, April 1: At the Nato summit, which begins in Bucharest on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to offer an alternative route for supplying US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.
The proposal, if accepted, will change the course of the war in Afghanistan and will also have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan as Nato’s 43,000 troops in Afghanistan rely heavily on supplies transported via Pakistan.
Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Russian and Nato diplomats have already held a series of “productive and successful” talks on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land.
The plan, however, could later be expanded to include ammunition and light weapons as well, the sources said.
Russia’s new ambassador to Nato Dmitri Rogozin played a key role in selling this plan to the members of this US-led alliance, telling them that this will be a reliable alternative route free of violence and political troubles.
While America’s European allies have shown great interest in the proposal, the Americans are still reluctant as they do not want to bring Russia back to a region from where it was forcibly ousted in 1989, after battling Afghan freedom fighters (now Al Qaeda and Taliban militants) for almost 10 years.
Despite Washington’s reluctance, the Nato has held intensive talks with Russian officials on the precise routes to be used and hopes to reach agreement at this week’s summit in Bucharest.
If approved by the summit, the supplies can begin as soon as Nato wants as the Russians already have a functioning route passing through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Under the proposed agreement, Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a military alliance of former Soviet republics, will jointly guarantee an interrupted supply of essential goods to the Nato forces.
Western diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Nato sees the proposed route as a good alternative for supplies going through Pakistan which faces political uncertainty and may not be a reliable route for long.
The Pakistan route, according to these sources, passes through the Taliban-infested tribal zone and has become increasingly dangerous. Last Sunday, militants blew up a convoy of 36 oil tankers meant for US forces in Afghanistan.
Russian diplomats promoting their proposal also have underlined a so-called “crisis of trust” between the United States and Pakistan, where the new government plans to engage militants in a dialogue opposed by Washington.
They also argue that Russia has always had a strong interest in seeing the Nato mission in Afghanistan succeed because Moscow wants to prevent Muslim extremists enter the former Soviet republics.
But there are others in Washington who warn that an attempt to disassociate Pakistan from any plan for Afghanistan may have dangerous consequences.
In an article published on the eve of the Nato summit, Karl F. Inderfurth, a former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, describes Pakistan as “one country that can make or break (Nato’s) mission” in Afghanistan.
He notes that Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has promised to visit Islamabad as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place.
“After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce Nato’s Afghan mission,” says Mr Inderfurth while backing the proposed visit.
Mr Inderfurth urges Nato leaders to work on a “new compact” that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan’s political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralise regional and great power rivalries.
To attain this, he proposed an UN-sponsored, a high-level conference of all Afghanistan’s neighbours and concerned major powers for talks on a multilateral accord that addresses Pakistan’s concerns about developments in Afghanistan.
The proposed accord should recognise Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan, pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, recognise Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state and establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan.
Mr Inderfurth also warns that any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests.
Instead, he urges working with Pakistan’s new leadership to integrate the tribal region into the Pakistani political system and provide substantial assistance to build up their economy and social infrastructure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
