WHILST I think President Barack Obama’s policy speech on the Afghan–Pakistan–Taliban imbroglio (or as Madeleine Albright put it quite aptly, ‘migraine’) was just great, why did President Asif Ali Zardari do a jig when he was told about it?
What was there to ‘hail’ in a speech that said clearly that there were no free lunches anymore for Pakistan, especially for the security establishment?
'Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out Al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders … we will insist that action be taken — one way or another [are you listening, sirs?] — when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets,' said President Obama.
Chilling words, what! Sure enough, the very next day our FO came out with a mealy-mouthed response to the American president’s speech, to the effect that Pakistan would inform the US about its concerns “in due course”. These concerns should be many for an establishment used to getting blank cheques when the quite out-of-it Dubya and his 'tight buddy' the Commando, were calling the shots.
Indeed, the Americans are even now asking for a full accounting of the billions of dollars that they quite unthinkingly paid directly to the security establishment, much of the funds allegedly outside the purview of the Pakistani finance ministry!
Many months ago, I had warned the powers that were/are, that they should beware the election to office of a highly intelligent and aware US president. That he would bring sense to the war on terror. Whilst ‘sense’, as we well know, is not something of which there is a surplus in the Land of the Pure, the establishment must immediately stop playing its usual, silly little games. For, from every indication, the Americans will hit it (and poor old hapless us!) very, very hard if it doesn’t.
It must also take serious note of what very senior American officials — generals, diplomats and all — are saying about the nexus between the Pakistan Army and the ISI, and the terrorists/extremists/Al Qaeda. The Americans have all but alleged that the army and the ISI are complicit in the nefarious activities of the terrorists/extremists/Al Qaeda. That operatives of the army/ISI warn high-value targets of coming hits…!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the New People’s Party goes on making a complete hash of things, and therefore exposing itself to more ridicule and loss of face and popularity. As if the massive mishandling of the restoration of the judges and the shemozzle wrought in Punjab by Laat Sahib Bahadur Salmaan Taseer was not enough, the Punjab government goes on posting public servants, specially police officers, hither and yon as if there was no tomorrow. This, despite President Asif Zardari’s so-called conciliatory speech to the joint sitting of parliament.
Why is Salmaan Taseer displacing these public servants when another, more permanent government belonging to the party that has the majority in the provincial assembly will soon be in office? Who will pay for the move of the officials when the posting orders are cancelled by the new government? Will Taseer, hugely rich man that he is, pay for the moves of the officers out of his own coffers?
So what goes on in the New PPP please? How much longer will it be at the mercy of people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be the incompetents they are? How come not one head has rolled for all the damage done to the party and to the country by people such as Rehman Malik and Salmaan Taseer? As asked before, what is so special about either of the two?
I must add here that to my utter surprise, to his credit Salmaan looked positively embarrassed and completely at sea when he appeared at Asif Zardari’s side at the Governor’s House press meet this last Sunday afternoon after it was all over. Is it at all possible that a germ of honour has come alive within his bosom? Is it possible that an iota of self-respect has come bursting out of his heart, finally? Is it at all possible that he has finally understood that he was completely wrong in helping rob a political party of its right?
I have to end with a rejoinder to the alleged Quetta denizen, Abdul Mannan Qutabzai’s recent letter in Dawn that there are no no-go areas for women in Quetta and that there is no danger at all of the Taliban declaring Sharia there. I invite him to go to http://pkonweb.com/2009/03/19/ capital-talk-on-geo-news-mar-19/ and see what eminent people like the good Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo son of the good Mir Ghaus Bux Bizenjo; and Lt Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch, former governor of Balochistan, have to say about the matter.
We Pakistanis must stop living in denial forthwith if this country is to survive. We must take head-on the terrorist/extremist/Al Qaeda menace if we are to leave our succeeding generations a country half worth living in. We must stand up collectively as the great nation we are and say to those that engineer situations to suit their own institutional needs and wants that enough is enough!
I mean, really! We seem to have learnt no lessons at all from history. We were in denial about East Pakistan and see what happened there. We foolishly became the front-line state for America’s war against the Soviet Union and see what a mess we made of Afghanistan, and of our own country as a spin-off. We went along with the ‘bleeding of India’ nonsense in Kashmir and see where that particular exercise landed us. In 1991, when we began to ‘bleed’ India, our foreign exchange reserves were $300m and India’s were $5.8bn. In February 2008, India’s reserves were $292bn and ours in November 2008, nine months later, were $6.5bn. So who bled who?
Wake up, sirs, have some shame and let this country off the hook!
By popular demand another Bushism: “I’m telling you there’s an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That’s the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best” — former (thank you Almighty God!) President George W. Bush — Washington, D.C., Jan 12, 2009
Stop Press: The attack on the Police Training School in Manawan, Lahore, is more proof that there is a serious assault on the state by above-mentioned terrorists/extremists. I wrote several weeks ago that Punjab was already under attack: well, there you have it, sirs. Will any heads roll now? Will someone resign? Isn’t it obvious that the present set-up in the Governor’s House is completely and hopelessly inept?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Pakistan under attack
It should be clear by now that we are at war with ourselves as the enemy within grows more audacious by the day. Yet there are educated people in this country who continue to blame American foreign policy and the ever-potent ‘foreign hand’ for the wave of terrorism sweeping the country. This argument is deeply flawed on several counts.
For one thing, the Pakistani state threw its weight behind America’s Afghan policy in the late ’70s and after 9/11, and as such we are equally responsible for the fallout. It is also common knowledge that Pakistani intelligence agencies once provided logistical support to militant organisations that could further our ‘strategic depth’ interests in Kashmir and across the Durand Line.
It is argued that those behind the storming of the police training centre in Lahore on Monday, and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team earlier this month, were so sophisticated in their methods that they must necessarily have had the backing of a foreign power. Such reasoning overlooks the fact that those who were freedom fighters a few years ago and are now labelled as terrorists were trained by the best in the business.
Let us assume for a moment, even if the truth lies elsewhere, that the terrorists who attacked Lahore on Monday were in the pay of an antagonistic neighbour. Does that absolve the Punjab government and the Pakistani state of the charge of gross negligence? Does it in any way disprove those who maintain that such incidents point to monumental intelligence failures and security lapses? It doesn’t matter who the paymasters might be.
What we have now are Pakistanis killing Pakistanis, Muslims killing Muslims. And while we are at it, let us discard once and for all the absurd notion that the people who carry out such dastardly acts cannot possibly be Muslims. They are Muslims. In fact, these terrorists and militants consider themselves to be far truer Muslims than those who oppose them.
The militants involved in Monday’s siege may have been overcome but it is time to hammer out a political and social consensus on this issue. It is time to show the kind of fervour the obscurantists demonstrate in abundance but the well-meaning couch in carefully chosen words. This is a fight and it cannot be won without throwing punches.
The country’s mainstream political parties need to draw a line in the sand and show the people, with no room for ambiguity, where they stand in this battle for the soul of Pakistan. The religio-political parties must also make their positions clear. President Obama says that US ground forces will not enter Pakistan. We would be well advised to not give them the chance. If we can’t do the job ourselves, others might do it for us. And that way lies disaster.Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Taliban vs. Predator: Are Targeted Killings Inside Pakistan A Good Idea?
Summary -- Targeted killings of enemy leaders have high costs, high risks, and limited benefits -- but are still a sensible way to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan.
On March 1, 2009, an unmanned drone reportedly killed eight Taliban and Arab militants in the Sora Rogha area of tribal Pakistan. The strike, the fifth drone attack in Pakistan since late January, demonstrates that the Obama administration is not jettisoning the policies of the Bush administration regarding targeted killings; in fact, it appears to be ramping them up.
Taliban and al Qaeda militants seek to kill Americans and American allies and are instituting a reign of terror in the parts of Pakistan they control, so few tears should be shed over their demise. However, as the administration moves forward, it should bear in mind lessons from the Israeli experience with similar targeted killing operations, which I discussed in an article in Foreign Affairs in 2006. The Israeli example suggests that the current U.S. campaign of using Predator attacks to go after its enemies is fraught with risks and can neither defeat al Qaeda nor remove it from its stronghold within Pakistan. That said, continued U.S. strikes should help tamp down the threat al Qaeda poses -- at least temporarily -- making them Washington’s least bad policy choice for the moment.
In its operations in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel found it hard to kill only terrorists. B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organization, reports that of the 386 Palestinians who died as a result of targeted killing operations, from the outbreak of the second intifada in September 2000 through the latest war in Gaza at the end of 2008, 40 percent were not the objects of attack -- and some of the unintended victims were children. In spite of all precautions taken, therefore, continued Predator strikes will inevitably kill innocent civilians as well as the enemy.
To have any chance of hitting their targets, meanwhile, Predator strikes require superb intelligence. Israel has a vast intelligence network, with thousands of informers in the Palestinian territories and a near-constant overhead presence of unmanned aerial vehicles and helicopters. In Pakistan’s tribal areas, by contrast, good human intelligence is always in short supply, and constant surveillance is difficult due to the size of the area in question.
The Israeli example suggests that the current U.S. campaign of using Predator attacks to go after its enemies is fraught with risks and can neither defeat al Qaeda nor remove it from its stronghold within Pakistan.
The United States cannot always generate enough good intelligence to sustain Predator operations on its own, but, as The New York Times has reported, Pakistani intelligence has at times given Washington detailed information on the location of militant leaders. Such support is limited, however, because Islamabad is playing a precarious double game. U.S. strikes on Pakistani soil are deeply unpopular, so no political leader wants to line up publicly with Washington. In addition, the militants are tied to powerful Pakistani interest groups, and many in the security elite hope to continue exploiting Islamic militants to serve Pakistani interests in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. This often means that Pakistani officials condemn U.S. actions in public while assisting them in private -- risking blows to their already weak standing when their hypocrisy is revealed (as it was last month, when Senator Dianne Feinstein [D-Calif.] disclosed that Predator strikes were being launched from bases in Pakistan).
Still, despite the Predator campaign’s costs, it also has some benefits. Israel’s experience shows that a sustained campaign of targeted killings can disrupt a militant group tremendously, as slain leaders are replaced by less experienced and less skilled colleagues. This can lead the group to make operational and strategic mistakes, and over time, pose less of a danger. Moreover, constant killings can create command rivalries and confusion. Most important, the attacks force an enemy to concentrate on defense rather than offense. To avoid becoming targets, group leaders must minimize communications, avoid large groups, constantly change their locations, disperse their cells, and take other steps that make it far harder for them to do the sustained, systematic planning required to build large organizations and carry out sophisticated attacks.
The advantages of targeted killings, however, ultimately reveal the limits of such an approach to counterterrorism. The Predator strikes may force al Qaeda to watch its step in Pakistan, but the terrorists can still carry out some operations. Moreover, their local jihadi partners (such as Lashkar-e-Tayyiba) remain unaffected. So far, the strikes have been confined to tribal areas near the Afghan-Pakistani border, meaning that al Qaeda and the Taliban have been able to relocate parts of their apparatus further inside Pakistan, which may work to actually widen the zone of instability. Although Israel achieved some success through its campaign of targeted killings during the second intifada in the early years of this decade, it was able to fully shut down Palestinian terrorism only by reoccupying parts of the West Bank and building a massive security barrier between itself and much of the Palestinian territories -- options that are not available to the United States in Pakistan.
Finally, many of the benefits of targeted killings occur only if they are part of a sustained rapid-fire campaign. As Israel’s experience shows, sporadic one-off killings are usually a mistake. They may spark leadership rivalries -- particularly in highly hierarchical groups -- but they do not affect a group’s ability to replace lost leaders or force it to divert its resources to counterintelligence.
What the Obama administration’s reliance on Predator strikes ultimately shows is just how flummoxed U.S. policymakers are when it comes to Pakistan. Stopping al Qaeda from using Pakistan as a base will depend on strengthening the government of Pakistan and stiffening its will to go after its own homegrown jihadis -- a tall order indeed. The current political leadership is weak and not fully committed to democracy and true reform. Civilian control over the military is nonexistent, and, in addition to the jihadist problem, bitter ethnic, sectarian, and political divisions threaten Pakistan’s unity. As the Obama administration begins the slow process of addressing these issues, the sad truth is that relying on bolts from the blue to keep al Qaeda and the Taliban weak and off balance is a sensible course to follow.
Obama’s Message to Middle East
US President Barack Obama has voiced his concern about the incoming Israeli government and prospects of the peace process.
In his White House address on Tuesday, the US leader has once again underscored his keenness to move forward in the Middle East by pushing for a two state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The president also brought up Iran towards the end of his talk saying he would persist to re-establish and improve relations with the Islamic republic.
Obama’s apprehensions centre on how things could shape with the formation of the new Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right Likud party in coalition with other hardline parties. Netanyahu’s coalition partners like Lieberman are not only known for their strong opposition to a Palestinian state but hold rabid stances on the Palestinians, Arabs and Iran.
On the other hand, Obama’s concern about the Palestinian leadership stems from the divisions within the Palestinian factions thus undermining unified efforts for an independent Palestine state. Even though Netanyahu’s coalition government is also going to be joined by the Labour party of Ehud Barak, it is unlikely to exercise any positive influence on the rigid stance of Netanyahu or his other coalition partners on the engagement with the Palestinians or other critical issues.
This is indeed unfortunate considering this US president unlike his predecessors appears to be genuinely interested in resolving the long festering Palestine-Israel conflict. An unreasonable and unwilling government in Tel Aviv could thwart these well-meaning and sincere initiatives from the Obama White House. Obama says that the status quo in the Middle East is unacceptable and unsustainable and that it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution. These remarks are likely to be received well in the region. Israel’s reaction to Obama’s statements is yet to come, and would predictably be a reiteration of its past stance that a two state solution is only possible if Palestinians show commitment to peace, renounce violence, and abandon support of Hamas.
Even though the official US position has been not to engage with Hamas, it has been called upon to change its position on the premise that Hamas enjoys popular support among the Palestinian population. Exiled Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal last week welcomed Obama’s overtures to Syria and Iran saying the US leader was speaking a new language of dialogue and reconciliation.
But the big question is, can this US president for a change make Israel listen to the voice of reason and resolve this business with the Palestinians? We’ll have to wait and see. This would require intensified diplomatic engagement with Israel as well as the Palestinians and right amount of pressure from Washington pushing for lasting peace in the world’s strategically sensitive region. It would also require efforts to unite the Palestinian factions and initiate dialogue — even if it’s indirect -- with Hamas. After all, a resolution in Ireland only came about after long and patient negotiations with the IRA terrorists -- that was also labelled as terrorist organisation.
Finally, An Afghan Exit Strategy
In a major policy turnaround, the US has revealed that it is working on an exit strategy from Afghanistan. Washington has already held discussions with its Nato allies as President Barack Obama prepares to unveil a new Afghan strategy.
Speaking on “60 Minutes” on CBS this week, the new US president stressed, “there’s got to be an exit strategy.” Also, while singling out Al Qaeda for criticism, the US leader argued that the use of force alone couldn’t solve Afghanistan’s problems. So even though the proposed exit from Afghanistan may take a while to materialise, it is correlated to a number of factors that are likely to determine the withdrawal of not only the US but also other Nato forces that are fighting as part of an international coalition.
It would include, first, regaining control of area that is currently ceded to the insurgents (60 per cent of the country, according to independent estimates), second, to establish an effective national security force that is capable of fighting the insurgents, third, to strive for effective governance. Nato has already been considering withdrawal in three to four years. The Europeans have been facing immense domestic pressure and are reluctant to commit more troops despite US pressure.
In a departure from his predecessor’s goal of a ‘workable democracy’, Obama is seeking a more specific aim: the neutralisation of al Qaeda threat to the US. This confirms the US perception that Al Qaeda high command — principally Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri — are in Afghanistan. However, its significance stems from the fact that the president has stressed on rooting out Al Qaeda and has omitted mentioning the Taleban in this instance.
The key difference herein lies in a possible opening the US may be offering to the Taleban and other insurgent groups to distance themselves from Al Qaeda thereby isolating them. Though there have been renewed efforts at engaging the Taleban and other groups in dialogue, there has not been much success. The Taleban group under Mullah Omar and the Haqqani group have termed the dialogue efforts “a sham” and an effort to divide the resistance.
An outright rejection of dialogue may, however, be a hardline stance as other indications point to indirect dialogue with mediators in countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In short, efforts for dialogue should continue.
The US exit plan also affirms its intention to step up military confrontation in insurgent-controlled areas, particularly along the border with Pakistan considered crucial to the war. It would also entail renewed focus on weaning away the moderate factions from the extremists among the insurgents — emulating a successful Iraqi initiative against Al Qaeda. There’s also talk of strengthening Afghan national security capabilities and focusing on development and better governance. It is likely that the Karzai government may be replaced by a more effective and broad-based government. So Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan may not be dramatically different from that of his predecessor’s. But it’s more realistic and could succeed if the coalition deals with the insurgency as a resistance force enjoying popular support.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Actions speak louder
PRESIDENT Zardari has said that it is time to forget the past and move on. ‘We have witnessed our state institutions repeatedly receiving blows from interventions,’ he stated at a farewell dinner for Abdul Hameed Dogar. Would that the president realised his own intervention in Punjab has struck another blow to those institutions. Through his proxy Governor Salmaan Taseer the president has kept Punjab in a state of near crisis on what appear to be very flimsy constitutional grounds.
Governor Taseer has refused to call a session of the Punjab Assembly to elect a new chief minister because, the governor claims, an aspirant to that office must first prove that he has the requisite numbers to win election. But that’s not what the constitution says. Constitutionally, a special session of the assembly is required to determine if a member of the house has the confidence of its members. If successful, that member, usually the leader of the largest party in the house, must be invited by the governor to become chief minister. Governor Taseer is arrogating to himself a discretion that the constitution simply does not give him.
The blatant illegality is doubly puzzling because now that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has been restored the PML-N has ended its boycott of the superior judiciary. Legal experts suggest it wouldn’t take long for the Supreme Court to do away with governor’s rule if an application to such effect is filed. So what is to be gained by prolonging an illegal step that is proving to be politically damaging? The obvious answer is: the president and his team in Punjab are buying time to win over the PML-Q. But the PML-N is clearly not worried about that outcome and has slapped away overtures from the Chaudhries of the PML-Q.
The PML-N has reason to be confident. Even if arm-twisting wins back the forward bloc of the PML-Q and a unified PML-Q supports the PPP, the stench of foul play will stay over the assembly — and it will only strengthen the PML-N’s moral upper hand and increase the party’s support among the electorate.
The one good thing the government is doing is pressing ahead with a review of the disqualification of the Sharif brothers and seeking a stay order in the meantime. Given what’s happening in Punjab it’s clear though that the PPP does not intend to hand the chief minister’s slot back to Shahbaz Sharif. But by being stubborn the PPP is flirting with other dangers too.
In recent weeks, the party has sucked the army back into mediating political crises. Gen Kayani has been applauded for his role in the restoration of Chief Justice Chaudhry, but a good choice yesterday can become a bad one tomorrow. Army intervention is bad. Period. One wishes the president would realise that too.
New threat of strikes
Hopefully better sense will prevail and nothing will come of reports that the US may extend its covert operations in Pakistan beyond Fata to Balochistan.
According to The New York Times, the Obama administration has been advised by military commanders to strike Taliban ‘safe havens’ in and around Quetta, which they believe serve as the headquarters of Mullah Omar and a staging post for attacks in southern Afghanistan. Pakistan has long denied such claims. Fortunately not everyone in Washington subscribes to the new policy being proposed by the military brass.
One senior official has been quoted as saying that ‘expanding [the] US role inside Pakistan may be more than anyone there can stomach”. We couldn’t agree more. American strikes in Pakistan violate the country’s sovereignty and give those who are fanning anti-western and anti-Islamabad sentiments even more ammunition.
At the same time, the civilian deaths caused by such strikes not only alienate but enrage ordinary tribal people without whose cooperation the war against militancy can never be won. That said, certain home truths need to be driven home. Pakistan rightly condemns violations of sovereignty but also needs to accept its own shortcomings.
While US policy may be misguided, it is the Pakistani state that allowed the sore of militancy to fester and disfigure large swathes of the country. The folly of ‘strategic depth’, a goal that could only be achieved through non-state actors, is one of the root causes of militancy in today’s Pakistan. Guns that once targeted foreign ‘enemies’ now point inwards. Many also believe that the Musharraf regime deliberately kept the threat of Talibanisation alive to convince the West of his indispensability.
Militancy spread first from the tribal agencies to the frontier regions (FRs) and then to the settled districts of the NWFP. Taliban-inspired militants can now be found across the country, including the major cities. As for Balochistan, the FC inspector general may be correct in his assessment on Wednesday that the Taliban do not enjoy political or tribal support in the province. That, however, does not mean that there are no Taliban holed up there. It is after all a fact that top Taliban commander Abdullah Mehsud died in district Zhob in July 2007 during an encounter with security personnel.
Drone strikes are a low-cost way of taking out targets without risking American lives. The US top brass thinks it is a successful policy because drone attacks have reportedly made inroads into the Al Qaeda leadership.
US CENTCOM adviser sees Pakistan in danger
WASHINGTON: The Pakistani state could collapse within six months if immediate steps are not taken to remedy the situation, warned a top adviser to the US Central Command.
David Kilcullen, who advises CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus on the war on terror, urged US policy makers to focus their attention on Pakistan as a failure there could have devastating consequences for the entire international community.
In an interview to The Washington Post published on Sunday, Kilcullen, who is credited with the success of the US troop surge strategy in Iraq, warned that if Pakistan went out of control, it would ‘dwarf’ all the crises in the world today.
‘Pakistan…hands down. No doubt,’ he said when asked to name the central front in the war against terror.
Asked to explain why he thought Pakistan was so important, Kilcullen said: ‘Pakistan has 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the US Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn’t control.’
He claimed that the Pakistani military and police and intelligence service did not follow the civilian government; they were essentially a rogue state within a state.
‘Were now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems,” he said.
‘The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we’ve seen in the war on terror today.’
Kilcullen, an Australian anthropologist who advises governments on Muslim militancy throughout the West, disagreed with the suggestion that it was important to kill or capture Osama bin laden.
He discussed two possible scenarios for catching the al-Qaeda leader. Scenario one is, American commandos shoot their way into some valley in Pakistan and kill bin Laden.
This, Kilcullen said, would not end the war on terror and would make bin Laden a martyr.
The second scenario: a tribal raiding party captures bin Laden, puts him on television and says, ‘You are a traitor to Islam and you have killed more Muslims than you have killed infidels, and we’re now going to deal with you.’ They could either then try and execute the guy in accordance with their own laws or hand him over to the International Criminal Court.
‘If that happened, that would be the end of the al-Qaeda myth,’ said Kilcullen.
He said that three lessons learned in Iraq could also apply to Afghanistan. The first one is to protect the population. ‘Unless people feel safe, they won’t be willing to engage in unarmed politics,’ he argued.
The second lesson is to focus on getting the population on America’s side and making them self-defending. And then a third lesson is to make a long-term commitment.
Kilcullen said that the Obama administration’s policy of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban also had several pitfalls.
‘If the Taliban sees that we’re negotiating for a stay of execution or to stave off defeat, that’s going to harden their resolve,’ he warns.
‘I’m all for negotiating, but I think the chances of achieving a mass wave of people turning against the Taliban are somewhat lower in Afghanistan than they were in Iraq.’
David Kilcullen, who advises CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus on the war on terror, urged US policy makers to focus their attention on Pakistan as a failure there could have devastating consequences for the entire international community.
In an interview to The Washington Post published on Sunday, Kilcullen, who is credited with the success of the US troop surge strategy in Iraq, warned that if Pakistan went out of control, it would ‘dwarf’ all the crises in the world today.
‘Pakistan…hands down. No doubt,’ he said when asked to name the central front in the war against terror.
Asked to explain why he thought Pakistan was so important, Kilcullen said: ‘Pakistan has 173 million people, 100 nuclear weapons, an army bigger than the US Army, and al-Qaeda headquarters sitting right there in the two-thirds of the country that the government doesn’t control.’
He claimed that the Pakistani military and police and intelligence service did not follow the civilian government; they were essentially a rogue state within a state.
‘Were now reaching the point where within one to six months we could see the collapse of the Pakistani state, also because of the global financial crisis, which just exacerbates all these problems,” he said.
‘The collapse of Pakistan, al-Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons, an extremist takeover -- that would dwarf everything we’ve seen in the war on terror today.’
Kilcullen, an Australian anthropologist who advises governments on Muslim militancy throughout the West, disagreed with the suggestion that it was important to kill or capture Osama bin laden.
He discussed two possible scenarios for catching the al-Qaeda leader. Scenario one is, American commandos shoot their way into some valley in Pakistan and kill bin Laden.
This, Kilcullen said, would not end the war on terror and would make bin Laden a martyr.
The second scenario: a tribal raiding party captures bin Laden, puts him on television and says, ‘You are a traitor to Islam and you have killed more Muslims than you have killed infidels, and we’re now going to deal with you.’ They could either then try and execute the guy in accordance with their own laws or hand him over to the International Criminal Court.
‘If that happened, that would be the end of the al-Qaeda myth,’ said Kilcullen.
He said that three lessons learned in Iraq could also apply to Afghanistan. The first one is to protect the population. ‘Unless people feel safe, they won’t be willing to engage in unarmed politics,’ he argued.
The second lesson is to focus on getting the population on America’s side and making them self-defending. And then a third lesson is to make a long-term commitment.
Kilcullen said that the Obama administration’s policy of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban also had several pitfalls.
‘If the Taliban sees that we’re negotiating for a stay of execution or to stave off defeat, that’s going to harden their resolve,’ he warns.
‘I’m all for negotiating, but I think the chances of achieving a mass wave of people turning against the Taliban are somewhat lower in Afghanistan than they were in Iraq.’
US focus on Pakistan in new Afghan strategy
BRUSSELS: The United States would call for major efforts to build the Afghan police, fight opium production and boost farm aid in a new strategy to beat the Taliban-led violence, a US envoy said on Saturday.
US representative Richard Holbrooke said the review would put Pakistan at the heart of efforts to combat the militants, including Al Qaeda fighters, drug runners and criminal gangs, but stressed cross-border activity was ruled out as a ‘red line’ for Pakistan’s government.
His comments, at the Brussels Forum conference, come just two days before he meets EU and Nato officials in the Belgian capital in a last series of talks about the best way to tackle a problem fuelling international terrorism.
‘It’s a daunting task and let no one underestimate the difficulty of it. The people of Europe and the people of the United States have to decide whether it matters to make this effort,’ Mr Holbrooke warned.
He said the militants were operating out of bases in Pakistan, where a ‘fragile government had recently taken over and the army is focussed more on fighting India than insurgents in lawless tribal areas’.
But he underlined that US and Nato-led forces in Afghanistan would not be crossing the mountainous border to hunt down militants, even though US drones had launched missiles at fighters crossing over.
‘The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan. But there are not going to be US or Nato troops on the ground in Pakistan. There is a red line for the government of Pakistan and one which we must respect,’ he said.
Mr Holbrooke also said that the United States had appealed to its allies to help train thousands more Afghan police.
‘The Afghan national police are an inadequate organisation riddled with corruption,’ he said. ‘We know they are the weak link in the security chain, so we have to figure out a way to increase the size and make them better at the same time.’
The European Union agreed last year to double the size of its EUPOL police mission there to some 400 police, but the force has been criticised for being too small.Mr Holbrooke said an initial assessment that the Afghan police should grow from 78,000 now to 82,000 had fallen well short of reality, but he played down press reports that 400,000 police would be needed.
Opium trade, farm reform
He also announced a revamp of US efforts to combat the Afghan opium trade, which is believed to have proved a major source of funds for militancy.
‘The United States alone is spending over 800 million dollars a year on counter-narcotics. We have gotten nothing out of it, nothing,’ he said. ‘It is the most wasteful and ineffective programme I have seen in 40 years.’
'We want to re-examine it — top to bottom,’ he said. According to US government figures last month, Afghanistan remained the world’s largest opium poppy producer, despite a 19-per cent drop in cultivation last year, and it still supplies 90 per cent of the world’s heroin.
Mr Holbrooke also said the administration would focus heavily on agriculture reform. He said the plan was to implement ‘a very significantly expanded agricultural sector job-creation set of programmes – irrigation, farmer-to-market roads, market places, seed.’
’This is an area of great promise, rebuilding the Afghan economy is critical,’ he said. The EU has spent some 8 billion euros in Afghanistan for the 2001-10 period, but Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said the 27-nation bloc could do much more for the economy there.
‘Until 2013, we have something like 40 billion euros for all our external activities. We are spending 160 million of that on Afghanistan per annum, that’s not going to do the job,’ he said.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Thinking Afresh on Afghanistan
Defence Secretary Robert Gates, perhaps, sounded realistic as he declared Afghanistan as the new administration’s ‘greatest test’ and top military priority, but cautioned that US objectives should be ‘limited’.
Rejecting the notion of Washington harping on the military muscles in the two wars that are now Bush legacy, he said the primary objective for America should be to ensure stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, and see that they do not become safe havens for Al Qaeda and its likes.
The secretary, who brings with him rich knowledge of the region and has also served as CIA chief under the Bush administration, enjoys respect as a moderate and a strategist. Gates rightly says that fight against terrorism had been less than stellar, and the reason could be none other than the jingoistic obsession of opening up the Iraq front, by the former president, when Afghanistan demanded serious attention.
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that rather than the pursuit of democracy, the mission should be to ensure that Afghanistan attains stability.
His comments marked a significant narrowing of US ambitions even as Washington prepares to nearly double the size of its forces in Afghanistan on the model of Iraq-like surge operation. He was also blunt in saying that American military involvement in Iraq is winding down, and he would place on the table all options for President Obama to decide, including the withdrawal of all US combat brigades from Iraq in 16 months. Such a policy represents a notable departure from the position of the Bush administration, which has long emphasised the importance of establishing a strong, democratic government in Afghanistan, and continuing with the military option.
Perhaps Gates, and thinkers like him at the Pentagon and the White House, have realised that neither a military solution, nor leaving Afghanistan in the lurch is possible, as they did on attaining mean objectives after defeating the Soviet Union. The region and the world cannot afford to withstand another such blunder.
Thus, rather than pursuing a mindless policy of staying put in Afghanistan or dragging on with unattainable military objectives, it’s time for Washington to usher in an era of peace and political stability in the war-ravaged country, and plan an exit strategy at the earliest. Gates, fortunately enough, will have the added impetus of a similar thinking from generals in the battlefield and Pentagon, such as General Petraeus who advocated the option of talking it out with the Taleban.
Is Obama Willing Enough?
During his long running presidential campaign, Barack Obama took an unusual line on the Middle East criticising the successive US administrations for waiting till the very end of their terms to move on the Palestine-Israel conflict.
The first African American nominee of his party would assure the voters – and the world -- he would get down to the business of Mideast peace from the word get-go.
By dispatching George Mitchell as his special envoy to the Middle East in his first week in White House, Obama seems to have fulfilled that promise. He is perhaps the first US president to do so.
What is most heartening about the latest of the Middle East peace initiatives is the genuine personal involvement and keenness of the young president for a breakthrough in an early phase of his term.
Given the US involvement in the region, especially its often unqualified support for Israel as well as its strategic relations with the Arab world, this commitment to peace is most welcome.
Indeed, given the unprecedented global support and goodwill he enjoys and his own unusual background that ties him to both the West and the Muslim world, this president has a historic opportunity to achieve something that eluded most of his predecessors – end the Mideast conflict and help the Palestinians find their homeland. Obama’s interview with Al Arabiya TV on Tuesday offers interesting insight into the new president’s thinking. Clearly, he is conscious of the fact that the Palestinian suffering has over the decades played a huge role in his country’s deteriorating relations with the Muslim world.
Hence the effort to reach out to the Muslim world in his inaugural address promising a ‘new way forward.’ For the first time yesterday, he talked of his Muslim roots and extended Muslim family in Kenya reminding the Muslims around the world America is not an enemy of Islam or Muslims. Hence the bold initiative of picking up former senator Mitchell, widely regarded for his contribution to the Northern Ireland peace process, as his eyes and ears in the Middle East.
It’s not as though Mitchell is the first special envoy to the Middle East. The region has witnessed a long parade of all sorts of envoys and peacemakers in the past. So what makes Mitchell different? And why should he succeed at something that failed numerous others?
Frankly, the success or failure of Mitchell’s mission does not depend on his diplomatic skills or efforts. It doesn’t even depend on Israel’s willingness to cooperate or its infamous intransigence. All said and done, it’s ultimately determined by a US president’s willingness to confront the Israelis persuading them to give up what does not belong to them.
Rewriting US-Iran Relations
The tense relationship between Teheran and Washington goes back many decades — from the days when the United States helped install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 1953 coup against an elected Iranian government, to the 1979 seizure of American diplomats by students in Teheran after the Shah fell to an Islamic revolution.
A lot more added to the bitterness since then, but the more recent strains emerged over Teheran’s nuclear programme, which it insists is for peaceful purposes. The United States has so far maintained that the programme is meant to produce nuclear weapons.
It is in this background that President Barack Obama in his inauguration speech offered to extend his hand and then in an interview with a Dubai-based television expressed willingness to talk with Teheran. Obama’s overture was backed by Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who said that Iran has a clear opportunity to engage with the international community.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may seem to have spurned the offer by asking the US to apologise for its actions against Iran. He also went on to say that his country would carefully listen and study the new US administration’s statements and moves.
There’s no argument that Obama is aware of the utter failure the US foreign policy has suffered in this part of the world. And that progress towards a more peaceful Middle East is part of his mandate. The Guardian reported on Thursday that Obama administration was preparing a letter to Iran intended to warm relations and pave the way for direct talks between Washington and Teheran. In fact, according to the paper, work on the document began immediately following the November election, upon receipt of a letter of congratulations sent to the president-elect by none other than Ahmadinejad himself.
US interests in normalising relations with Teheran are clear. A peaceful Middle East ensures that the hundreds of billion dollars in investment and hundreds of million barrels of oil remain accessible, and the US stays as the effective power as most understand in the region and beyond.
Iran, however, will have to first develop a consensus within on why would it want to have any relations with the Americans, and what it envisages its role to be in a region where most nations perceive Teheran as more of a risk than a friend. There are no terms that Iran can dictate to the US, whose forces surround the country from all four sides.
The extended hand of Obama is not that of a defeated nation. The move reflects a confident president, and the extended hand should be met with equal poise from the other side.
War of Words in Economy
The war of words between the new US administration, China and Russia on the state of the global economy at this juncture is rather unfortunate.
The new US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, fired the first salvo by accusing China of manipulating its currency during his confirmation hearing on January 22. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao used the Davos Summit as a venue to mount a sweeping attack on the US economic system by accusing it of being unstable and characterised by excessive consumerism, prolonged low saving rates and excessive expansion of financial institutions. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin joined Premier Wen with his characteristic bluntness, taking a scathing swipe at the US dollar’s reserve currency status.
The global economy is barely breathing. According to the IMF, global economic growth would be 0.5 per cent. Advanced economies are expected to contract while developing countries will be crawling at a snail’s pace. Over three decades of globalisation has woven deep interlinkages between all the countries except a few like North Korea, which has decided to stay out of the global trading system. The global economy can be restored only by cooperation, especially among large trading nations.
China’s accusation of excessive consumerism by Americans is like the pot calling the kettle black. For over a decade China has not only manufactured cheap products to feed the insatiable appetite of US consumers but also financed the Americans to buy its product. It is equally responsible for the glut of liquidity in the system, which went to inflate asset price bubbles around the world.
One can also question the export-led economic development strategy of China. It might have enabled China to amass over $2 trillion in reserves, but with Chinese exporters shredding millions of jobs, the ordinary Chinese are left in the lurch.
Russia’s worry about the dollar is understandable. The greenback has been volatile in recent years and Russia’s main exports – oil and gas – are priced in dollars. But inherent weakness of the dollar had little role in the on-going crisis in Russia. The Russian banks and the oligarchs have tapped government for bailouts and the ruble has fallen by more than 20 per cent against the dollar. Moreover, the world has begun diversifying away from the dollar. The Euro now makes up about 27 per cent of all the official foreign exchange reserves held globally up from 17 per cent in 1999.
Iraqis Repose Faith in Ballot
A massive turnout in Iraqi polls on Saturday reflected the fact that the country has come out of carnage and chaos, and is embracing complete sovereignty as the role of the United States diminishes.
The elections are also seen as a test of Iraq’s stability and a new chapter in parliamentary democracy as more than 14,000 candidates contested for 440 seats to lead councils in 14 of the country’s 18 provinces.
The vote has come at a decisive moment. With Iraqi troops providing the bulk of security and the coalition forces taking a backseat, the elections offer a glimpse of the nation’s resolve and ability to manage its own affairs. Saturday’s vote is the first on a nationwide scale since the US invasion in 2003, and also the first in which the nation’s Sunni minority and Shia majority went to poll without much disagreement.
Another promising aspect is that the polls did not marginalise the Sunni population, which was dubbed as Al Qaeda sympathisers for boycotting the 2005 elections. It vigorously campaigned on issues of development and socio-economic lifelines.
However, the US policy of ‘surge’ has acted as a catalyst in realising the unison of thought in the Iraqi society — that addressed to a great extent fears among the minority community by making them a stakeholder in the nation-building process.
A day of peaceful polling, which saw 14 million eligible voters rubbing shoulders, will always be remembered as a milestone in the country’s history. It is not only a great achievement for an infant democracy at work in Iraq, but also a point of delight for the Americans as they scramble to pull out of the war-weary country.
Iraq’s repeated experiences with the ballot in the post-Saddam Hussein era, howsoever turbulent and distasteful they may be, only confirms the nation’s faith in democracy that has had a long journey from dictatorship to foreign occupation and now a representative dispensation.
Keeping in view Iraq’s rich history and culture, and the nation’s fondness for egalitarianism, it is good to see that in the recent polls a large number of people were seen campaigning candidates with secular and nationalistic credentials – in a sharp departure from the previous trend of voting purely on sectarian and ethnic lines. This has, indeed, allayed fears being cast over Iraq’s geographical integrity.
Victory For Iraqi Democracy
Iraqis have voted enthusiastically in a peaceful and apparently free and fair poll that is widely being seen not only as the country’s hopes for democracy but also its test of stability.
In the first nationwide elections in three years and perhaps its first truly democratic vote, the trust reposed by the Iraqis in democracy and its power to change is a good omen. This is a great victory for Iraqi people and a celebration of democracy.
The elections to the 444 seats in 14 provinces, contested by more than 14,400 candidates, saw grass roots democracy at play with many newcomers trying their luck. They campaigned vigorously on socio-economic issues, putting aside issues like foreign occupation and security and political matters. Foreign investment, tax concessions and political reforms were salient features of many manifestos. Even though this is Iraq’s first provincial elections, this focus on domestic issues can go a long way to harness a broad-based nationalistic outlook by allaying fears about the country’s Balkanization along sectarian and ethnic lines.
The most striking feature of the polls, apart from a 62 per cent turnout, is the emergence of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki as an icon of new Iraq and its unity. By asserting himself in his dealings with both the Americans and Iran-backed Shia alliance, Maliki has gained the confidence and respect of both the Sunnis and the Shias. Which is perhaps why the Sunni community that largely stayed away from the first parliamentary election has been part of the provincial polls. Exit polls suggest Maliki’s Dawa’a Party, though a small and negligible force as compared to the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, as well as the resurgent Mehdi militia of Moqtada Al-Sadr, has made enough inroads as a viable political force. Maliki, a virtual nobody when he took over as Prime Minister, has to his credit successfully negotiated an early exit of coalition forces and considerably improved security situation. So whichever way the provincial polls go, they will benefit the prime minister.
Unclenching Fist in Iran and Syria
In an interesting development, the White House has sought to distance itself from reports that some advisers to President Barack Obama had held ‘discreet’ talks with ‘very, very top’ Syrian and Iranian officials during his transition.
In fact, some of those talks were reportedly held even before Obama’s election on November 4.
The talks were held with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad in Damascus and included Ellen Laipson, a former White House adviser and a member of the Obama transition team. That meeting took place as recently as January 11.
More important, some nuclear non-proliferation experts have had contacts in the last few months with top Iranian leadership. Now the White House spokesperson insists Obama had made it clear to his team of advisers that there would be no contacts with foreign governments. This however does not change the fact that the incoming president had indeed initiated or
sanctioned engagement with Teheran and Damascus.
In fact, we see no reason why the Obama administration should get defensive about establishing direct contacts with the two countries that have been at loggerheads with the US for the past several years. The US friction with these two countries has dangerously destabilised the entire neighbourhood. As if the US didn’t have enough problems with Iran, the Bush administration managed to alienate Syria, forcing it into the welcoming arms of the Iranians. This policy had not been inspired by the US national interest but under pressure from Israel. Which is why all Syrian efforts to patch up with Washington ran into a blind wall. The hostility to Iran was also largely driven by the Israeli factor, rather than by mutual US-Iran interests.
Which is why President Obama should be taking credit for his efforts to reach out to estranged allies and adversaries like Syria and Iran, rather than be apologetic about this whole business. As argued in this space before, dialogue and diplomacy are the way to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue. Clearly, President Obama believes in this approach too. Hence his willingness to talk to ‘anybody’ and bold invitation to Teheran to unclench its fist.
Afghan War and Regional Players
The security of Afghanistan is assuming greater urgency in the US-led coalition’s war on ‘extremism’.
There has lately been a perceptible movement to increase the involvement of regional stakeholders such as Russia, China, India and Iran in the country. Pakistan, even though recognised as a key player vital to the coalition’s fight against the Taleban and Al Qaeda, has also been labelled disappointing for its failure to rein in the pro-Taleban militants and root out Al Qaeda.
As militants incensed by the continuing drone attacks in the tribal belt stepped up attacks on Nato supply trucks and ambushed convoys carrying essential supplies to the allied forces on the Khyber highway — the main supply route running through the border — western strategists began to review other alternate routes for supplies to their forces in Afghanistan. Alternate route options passing from China, Central Asia and Iran had been considered before. However, the existing routes running through Pakistan
emain the most feasible in terms of distance
and time.
Unless the new US administration manages a breakthrough with Teheran, it is unlikely to use Iran as a conduit for its strategic supplies to the ISAF. It would also be wary of Iran’s outwardly conciliatory and good neighbourly approach towards rebuilding Afghanistan as Iran would naturally be inclined to extend its influence eastwards. As Afghanistan hosts a theatre for regional power struggles and proxy conflicts between states like Pakistan and India, it could see further chaos with Iran’s growing role and assertions in militarising Afghanistan’s Shia population. India’s assertion of its role as a regional power and its activities in Afghanistan, including its desire to play a more active role in Afghanistan’s security architecture has been a source of great concern to its neighbour. Pakistan has accused India of subversive activities in both Balochistan and FATA (federally administered tribal areas) and has in turn been blamed for attacking Indian interests and role in Afghanistan. India has played a smart role by forging links with Iran and Kabul while limiting Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan.
Last month’s opening of the $150 million, 220-km road linking Delaram in Nimroz in South West Afghanistan with Zaranj and the Iranian port of Chahbahar, funded entirely by India, is of strategic import. It underscores Delhi’s determination to consolidate its foothold in Afghanistan as well as opening vital trade and communication routes with the country and other Central Asian states — thus bypassing Pakistan.
Nuclear India in a New Age
India has signed a crucial agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog.
The deal will open the way for international inspections of India’s nuclear programme, in turn allowing it access to nuclear fuel and technology from the Nuclear Supplier Group states. The group had in September 2008 approved an India-specific exemption. This would allow US companies among others to build nuclear reactors in India and provide nuclear fuel for its civilian energy programme.
India’s quest for new energy sources would see a considerable balancing of its energy needs from nuclear energy based sources as they are expected to meet up to 25 per cent of its energy demands by mid century.
More important, defying domestic protests, India’s agreement with the IAEA will entail granting access to its civilian sector in 2009 thus placing 14 declared civilian power reactors (by 2014) from a total of 22 under IAEA safeguards permanently.
This agreement would also place all future civilian thermal and breeder reactors under IAEA safeguards, in keeping with the important stipulation included by New Delhi that the Indian government retains the sole right to determine such reactors as civilian.
This, of course, excludes existing military facilities and stockpiles of nuclear fuel from inspection and allows India greater leverage to extend its nuclear capacity in the civilian and military sector. A lot of concern has been voiced over the lack of sufficient safeguards to prevent India from building more nuclear weapons thus destabilising the already fragile security architecture in the southwest Asia. Apart from Pakistan’s concerns, especially when it feels it’s being left out and is not being offered a similar agreement on developing its civilian nuclear sector, China’s concerns aren’t seen as unjustified. The strategic partnership India has forged with the United States is now viewed as a long-term strategy to contain China. Even though India and China have lately developed a stronger economic relationship, considering their growing regional stature and political and economic ambitions, both are bound to have a conflict of interests in the future.
Iran’s Hope and Mideast Fears
Iran has launched its first home made communications satellite ‘Omid’ as a “data processing satellite project”; first in terms of being domestically produced and launched by a rocket Safir-2, it can carry a satellite — or a nuclear warhead or chemical weapon.
Though Iran had previously launched satellites in orbit, the first in 2005 (Sina-1, the Russian made missile and one that was launched by a Russian rocket) and a solid fuel rocket, Sajjil in November 2008, the launch of ‘Omid’ exhibits an advancement level in missile technology capability that Iran has achieved despite stringent international sanctions. This marks a new chapter in its missile technology capability. A missile essentially carries three components; the body, the engine and the warhead that can be used for either peaceful civilian purposes such as a satellite or for military purposes.
‘Omid’, that translates as hope, is being translated in more ominous terms worldwide. Iran’s so-called peaceful and friendly message to the world is, however, being interpreted differently by the West and Israel. Israel of course sees it as another step closer to a direct existential threat from Iran.
The neighbouring region, principally the Gulf states, is also right to be concerned about the implications arising from this development. This would directly bring to mind the correlation between Iran’s acquired missile capability and its covert attempts at acquiring nuclear capability.
Iran’s long standing disputes in the region and its interventionist policies are bound to acquire greater seriousness once it does acquire nuclear capability. A capability Iran has been defending as its due right and one solely for civilian purposes, despite its continued uranium enrichment in the face of international pressure.
The significance of this launch, albeit marking the 30th anniversary of Islamic Revolution, is more of an implicit message to the new administration in Washington that Iran has reached an advanced stage in missile capability and cannot be stopped. It is clearly understood that a certain level of advanced missile technology is of utmost importance to any nuclear programme, as it is the crucial delivery mechanism of nuclear warheads.
So this development could be used by the Iranian government for leverage in case negotiations are held with the Obama administration that has expressed desire for engaging Iran in talks.
Road to Afghanistan Goes Via Iraq
If Afghan Defence Minister’s revelation that foreign fighters from Iraq and elsewhere are joining Taleban in the fight against US-led coalition is true, it should be a cause of serious concern to all parties concerned.
According to Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, as much as 60 per cent of insurgents fighting in Afghanistan are foreigners and mostly came from Iraq.
However, the Afghan claims of indigenous Afghan Taleban fighters numbering only 15,000 in the total insurgency should be viewed sceptically as Kabul would naturally like to downplay that particular aspect. Mostly active in Helmand, one of the most troublesome provinces in terms of insurgency and opium production, these insurgents have been joined by foreign insurgents from Iraq; other foreigners include Chechens, Arabs, Uzbeks and Pakistanis.
General Wardak has directly linked the improved security and lessening of violence in Iraq to an increase of insurgency in Afghanistan. The Afghan army presently consisting of 70,000 troops is set for expansion to 134,000 but needs an increase and improvement in resources and training. In addition, the US has also planned arming select local groups to fight the insurgents, a project that may backfire considering the nature of the insurgency that is far more complex than commonly perceived.
The US plans to delegate another 30,000 troops to the existing ISAF troops stationed in Afghanistan seems to be a replication of the Iraqi strategy of General Petraeus.
The Afghan jihad against the Soviets in the 1980s witnessed an influx of mujahideen fighting foreign occupation forces at its climax and today one sees history repeating itself as foreign fighters join the Taleban against the ISAF. As Iraq struggles to gradually achieve a semblance of normalcy with the successful provincial elections that even saw the involvement of Sunni groups, one can in retrospect give credit for this development to the improved security and the political reconciliation process.
The initial extremist violence that was disapproved even by Al Qaeda often targeted civilians and caused widespread terror. It was in turn rejected by Iraqi people and the Sunni factions.
A combination of factors in fact quelled violence that has dropped by almost 80 per cent in the last two years.
Israel’s Posturing and Misery in Gaza
As Gaza suffers with the continued blockade restricting even humanitarian supplies to reach its people, the international community seems to watch in a suspended state of stupor Israel’s flagrant violations of the most basic humanitarian principles.
In the latest show of strength, avowed at setting a precedent against such future attempts at challenging Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the Israeli navy intercepted and practically ‘abducted’ a Togo flagged, Lebanese ship — The Brotherhood Ship — carrying about 60 tons of food supplies, medicines and toys to Gaza.
Israel’s Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni said that the Israeli action has, “proved things will be done differently from now”; a clear message, in view of previous attempts challenging Israeli blockades that were made by activists determined to reach Gaza. Even as the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora strongly condemned the actions and called on the international community to persuade Israel to allow the shipment through, Israel chose to do what it deems correct in keeping with its national security interests.
Denying allegations of firing at the ship by the Israeli army, Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, defended Thursday’s actions of forcing the ship towards the Israeli port of Ashdod for holding and questioning. Israel maintains that the ship had been forewarned to return to Egypt after it attempted to cross Israeli blockades earlier. Pretending to change course, it made another attempt when it was intercepted, boarded and escorted by the Israeli Army 32 kms of the
Gazan coast.
A search operation by the Israeli army could not discover any Gaza-bound weapons. However, the ship carried about 20 passengers that included 8 journalists and activists. One of the passengers, the 86-year-old activist Hilarion Capucci was a former Greek Catholic Archbishop, who had served 2 years in an Israeli prison on being convicted of smuggling weapons from Lebanon to Israel in 1975.
The incident itself serves a reminder to the world conscience that Gaza continues to be blockaded since June 2007, when Hamas won a civil war against Fatah. The latest three-week Israeli offensive against Hamas that started in December 2008 led to more than 1300 Palestinians being killed.
The United Nations and other groups have been crying hoarse over the continuing plight of the Palestinians people who after having gone through a bloody conflict, now have to contend with conditions of severe deprivation and misery at the hands of Israel.
Iraqis Vote for Pluralism, Democracy
Iraqis have cast an extraordinary vote. Preliminary results suggest that the people are motivated more by pragmatism than by religion and tribalism.
In a first-ever nationwide poll in 14 of the 18 provinces, which were widely acknowledged as transparent and peaceful, Iraqis have pinned their hopes in a secular and development-oriented agenda by allaying fears of the country’s Balkanization on ethnic and sectarian lines.
The most stunning aspect of the verdict has been the emergence of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki as a national leader. While not a candidate himself, Maliki’s State of Law alliance triumphed in nine of the 14 provinces. It is no less than a surprise that voters have returned Shia candidates who campaigned against various militias of the same sect that had literally ruled the streets in the post-Saddam era — plunging the country in a three-year long civil war.
The vote has also come as a blow to Iraq’s biggest Shia party — the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, and the resurgent Mehdi Militia of Moqtada Al Sadr. So strong has been the passion of Iraqis to vote for liberal and pro-reconciliation candidates that Maliki’s and nationalist candidates routed powerful pro-clerical candidates in the Shia fiefdoms of Najaf, Kufa and Karbala.
Maliki’s most formidable strength has been standing up to the United States, and persuading Washington that a relationship based on sovereign equality is more viable than occupation of the country.
Moreover, his politics of compromise with the Sunnis and roadmap of reconciliation with all those who can lend a helping hand in rebuilding a new Iraq has won him the mantle of a national leader.
Even in Sunni and Kurdish-populated areas, the vote has widely been in favour of those who talked about autonomy and reforms, as well as reconciliation for building a harmonious Iraq. As a prelude to national elections later this year, around 55 per cent of the eligible voters have cast their vote against the once resurgent trends of sectarianism and parochialism.
Kyrgyz Airbase and the New Russo-US Nexus
Russia is seen as sending conflicting signals to the new US administration. While offering to help Washington in Afghanistan, it has managed to deliver a blow via Kyrgyzstan’s decision to close the US air base at Manas near Bishkek.
The Kyrgyz President Kurman Bakiyev denies that the decision is influenced by Moscow, thus refuting its linkage with the assistance of a $2 billion loan from Russia. However, it is being viewed as one that favours Moscow — that had been displeased with US military presence and its activities at aiding coloured revolutions in some Central Asian states, besides curtailing Russian influence in the region.
Bakiyev stressed that the decision was taken in view of Kyrgyzstan’s grievances against the US for low economic compensation in return of the use of the airbase — despite repeated requests over the past eight years — as well as the row over the killing of a Kyrgyz national by an American serviceman. The annual, renewable US-Kyrgyz agreement drawn in July 2006 required the US to pay $17.4 million yearly for the use of the airbase. Closure of the airbase, after being voted by the Kyrgyz Parliament sometimes this month, implicates a strategic rethink for the US plans for Afghanistan. The Manas base, a vital airbase that was used for refuelling of planes and as a transit point for the coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan, has been a ‘vital’ platform for Washington since 2001. Ideally located at a distance of only one-and-a-half hours from Afghanistan, it became the primary point of US logistical coordination in Central Asia after Uzbekistan asked the US to leave its base, Karshi Khanabad (K2) in 2005, over a dispute on human rights issues.
With its main land-based supply routes from Pakistan under threat from militants, which face periodic disruptions, the US was already exploring other options. With the closure of Manas, which the Kyrgyz government termed as ‘final’ and not up for a bargain, Washington would be required to speed up its quest for opening another vital base in Central Asia.
Even as Bakiyev announced the decision, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has pledged “full-fledged” cooperation with the US to stabilise Afghanistan. Paradox, indeed. Clearly, Russia meant to play a more active role in Afghanistan as the new US contingency centres on additional US troops for Afghanistan. Russian-US relations reached a diplomatic low last year over the war in Georgia amidst other major concerns; these centre on the possible expansion of Nato to include Georgia and Ukraine and on the establishment of the US Missile Defense Shield system installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Iraq Lessons for Afghanistan
Richard Holbrooke, the US Special Envoy tasked with the daunting mission to reformulate an effective strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, has warned that the insurgency in Afghanistan will be tougher to crack than Iraq.
Afghanistan, under the Obama administration in Washington with a shift in focus from Iraq, has become the main front in the US war on terror. Holbrooke, widely regarded for bringing about the Dayton Peace Accords that helped end the war in the Balkans, bears the burden of added expectation stemming from his past career experiences.
Earlier plans of sending additional 30,000 US troops as part of US commander General David Petraeus’ new surge strategy, successfully implemented in Iraq, are now reportedly stalled as President Obama has rightfully called for a more in-depth review of the Afghanistan strategy before taking drastic measures. This development may have arisen out of need to wait for Ambassador Holbrooke’s return from his 10-day tour starting yesterday, to South West Asia that includes Pakistan, Afghanistan and a visit to India.
Holbrooke, along with a high-profile delegation from the US that included Vice-President Joe Biden, General Petraeus and General James Jones, attended the 45th Munich Security Conference last weekend. The clear signal from the US at the Munich conference was that the changed US foreign policy would focus on diplomacy and call for broader dialogue and wider international cooperation with its partners.
Holbrooke has emphasised the need for greater regional cooperation between neighbouring countries that would include Iran but was particularly mindful of the importance of Pakistan’s role in the stabilisation of Afghanistan. The use of a carrot and stick policy of the US towards Pakistan in the process is obvious with Holbrooke asking for the international community’s “increased assistance and sympathy towards Pakistan,” that he claimed “was in a dire situation.”
On the other hand, the US has conveyed to Islamabad that it will continue with drone strikes against the so-called high value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, thus totally ignoring the civilian casualties that already have the tribal belt and Pakistani society on the boil. The need to avoid civilian casualties in operations in Afghanistan was also the main thrust of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s address at the conference. Pakistan has expressed hope that the new strategy would be formulated in keeping with the local tradition in both its military component and for the reconstruction efforts aimed at stabilisation and control of restive pockets in conflict areas.
A New Era of US-Russia Ties
It must have come as a consolation for Russia that the United States has realised the need for ‘re-casting’ their otherwise strained relations in a new prism of cooperation.
In a policy statement in Munich, emphasising the direction and preferences of the new administration, Vice President Joe Biden reaffirmed intentions to ‘start anew’ by putting to rest reservations over regional and continental affairs. Taking into account their laundry list, both Moscow and Washington have a long way to go before settling down for a harmonious bilateral equation.
Their relations were strained under the Bush administration over Nato’s expansion eastward, Russia’s war with Georgia and the US decision to install missile shield defences in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Thus, it is hoped once that mistrust is done away with and a new security paradigm evolves, especially for countries along Russia’s Western border, Washington will be comfortable with exploring mega projects with Russia in an era of economic recession and meltdown.
America’s mending of fences with Russia will also help the sole superpower in rewriting relations with its traditional allies in Europe. It is not an exaggeration to say that US-Russia relations encompass more than half of world affairs. Their relations carry stakes for the world in spheres such as climate change, poverty alleviation and fighting terrorism. Moreover, stability in Afghanistan, peace in the Middle East and peace between China, Japan and the Korean Peninsula are other areas that require US-Russia engagement. Now is the time for Washington and Moscow to turn their Munich rhetoric into concrete actions. The starting point can be reviewing their stated positions on missile defence shield in Central Europe and Russia’s rigidity on Georgia’s desire to join Nato.
Similarly, as both countries look forward to resume dialogue on START-I agreement, as a prelude to the Review Conference on the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty next year, the world expects them to take a leap forward in realising a nuclear free world — as both control 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear warheads.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
