Alive and Kicking


Written by S.G. Jilanee • Cover Stories • July 2011

What America still calls its war on terror (WoT) was actually a fight between Osama bin Laden and the United States. The casus belli was U.S. presence on Arab soil, particularly Saudi Arabia, and its blind support for Israel despite the latter’s excesses against the Palestinian people. America made the issue global by playing up bin Laden as a threat to its European allies as well and corralled them into a coalition against al-Qaeda.

In this way America contrived to convert its war with al-Qaeda into a clash of civilizations, creating deep perception in Muslim minds globally that it is a crusade in which, like in the olden days, the Christians are targeting Muslims.

Therefore, even though American officials and statesmen often admit that al-Qaeda has been dismantled, disrupted and defeated in Afghanistan, as promised by President Obama and bin Laden has been killed, yet, the Obama administration seems reluctant to vacate its occupation of Afghanistan. It talks of a “long haul.” A “draw down” of troops may start from July, but, both the outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates and incoming Leon Panetta, favor American presence in Afghanistan well beyond the 2014 deadline announced in Madrid.

In fact, the U.S. seems so determined to prolong its occupation of Afghanistan, that outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a blistering attack on NATO at Brussels in June in a valedictory speech. He lambasted members for failing to lend all out support in men and resources to the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. In his bluntest warning to the Europeans, Gates fumed that that NATO had degenerated into a “two-tiered” alliance of those willing to wage war and those only interested in “talking” and peacekeeping.

Actually, Afghanistan has, in recent times, assumed a pivotal status in America’s South-Asian strategy. Policymakers in Washington have realized their folly in leaving Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. They are not going to repeat the same mistake again.

Moreover, the situation has also changed remarkably. Today there are other factors as well, besides ensuring that Afghanistan never again breeds an enemy of the “American people.” Most important is Afghanistan’s contiguity with America’s eternal bugbear, Iran. The second is the facility that a permanent foothold in Afghanistan offers for access to Central Asian oil and, above all, keeping surveillance on China.

Therefore, according to latest reports, the U.S. is engaged in secret negotiations with the Kabul government for a strategic partnership agreement that would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 with at least five bases to house large contingents of U.S. Special Forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware. Russia, China and India have already expressed their concern about such a move, while Mark Sedwill, the NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a “Great Game 3.0” in the region.

However, Pakistan’s support would be critical not only to fulfill any such American dream, but even to enable the U.S. to extricate itself out of its quagmire of choice. Ten years on, this longest American war has bled the U.S. economy white. The American people are fed up with this endless war, without ever any victory in sight. Even some Democrats are asking for a faster pace of withdrawal than Mr. Obama is prepared to announce.
The gains since the surge in troops, hyped to rally popular support, are offset by the spike in the number of coffins received from the battlefront.

Besides, there is no guarantee that Taliban have been permanently evicted from any area never to return. What is agreed is that in face of the overwhelming force of the Marines, they have retreated from Kandahar and the adjoining areas, only to return when the situation improves for them.
In a desperate bid to find some face-saving solution, therefore, Washington has often been giving out conflicting signals. Thus, from baying for Mullah Omar’s blood and firmly rejecting the idea of any talks with him, now the U.S. is reported to have established contact with him to negotiate peace. Similarly, it has been vacillating between including and excluding Pakistan in peace negotiations with the Taliban, only to find that there is no alternative to Pakistan’s support.

“We need each other, and this relationship goes beyond Afghanistan,” Defense Secretary Gates was therefore quoted as telling the press recently. “It has to do with regional stability, and I think we have to be realistic about Pakistani distrust ... and their deep belief that when we’re done with al-Qaeda that we’ll be gone, again.”

Pakistan is already very sore after the insult the U.S. inflicted on it with the Special Forces raid on Osama’s hideout.

Mike Mullen and Robert Gates, both, have acknowledged the “humiliation” it caused to Pakistan. Therefore, even though the CIA suspects that intelligence it provided to its Pakistani counterpart about insurgent bomb making outfits in North and South Waziristan, was leaked to the culprits (by ISI) so the factories were found abandoned when Pakistani troops arrived, and the ISI detained five alleged Pakistani informants of the CIA, there has not been any angry reaction.

To the contrary, Leon Panetta recently told lawmakers in Washington that the U.S. “must do everything it can to strengthen the ‘complicated’ relationship with Pakistan,” adding that, “It is clear that the U.S. cannot succeed in Afghanistan if it is not succeeding in neighboring Pakistan, controlling terrorist safe havens and cross-border attacks.”

Therefore, unless the U.S. decides to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age that the then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage threatened to enlist the latter’s support in the wake of 9/11, which it is quite capable of, it must seek Pakistan’s cooperation to pursue its goals rather than bully and goad.

The most crucial point is that instead of demanding that Pakistan should see people and things through the American lens and adapt its domestic and foreign policies to U.S. interests, Washington should try to see things from the Pakistani viewpoint. For example, the U.S. is becoming increasingly impatient that the Pakistan Army should launch an all out military operation in North Waziristan. It also wants the Haqqani network eliminated.

But Pakistan has a different take on the issue. It has to ponder over the ramifications of a military operation in NW, on its economy as well as law and order, due to large scale displacement of the population. Even on the so-called Haqqani network, Pakistanis and Americans hold different views. For instance, Haqqani may be a thorn in America’s side. But he has been an ally of the Pakistan army in its fight against the Taliban. Naturally, therefore, the army would not like him to join the TTP.

Even beyond counterterrorism, Pakistan’s cooperation will be crucial for America because, if it maintains a permanent foothold in Afghanistan, its shipments of fuel and all other goods shall have to be routed through Pakistan. And Afghanistan would need Pakistan’s goodwill for its trade with India for which an agreement was signed during President Karzai’s visit to Islamabad on June 9th and 10th.

However, a durable peace in Afghanistan should also include India as a role player, because, one, India is the second largest donor after the U.S. to Afghanistan’s reconstruction and two, it would shut the door for Indo-Afghan machinations against Pakistan.