|
 The bid to rescue the United States from being trapped in a Vietnam like situation and the entry of General David Petraeus as the top man on horseback to lead the reinforced multinational troops in Afghanistan, might not fulfill all the desired U.S. dreams as the messy situation in the war-torn country becomes even more complicated.
General Petraeus, who walks with the aura of a personality cult around him, replaced General Stanley McChrystal to take over the command of more than 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops on July 4. This large force is fighting faith-based insurgency in Afghanistan since the ouster of the Taliban government there in 2001.
U.S. President Barack Obama asked for the resignation of "loudmouth" General McChrystal following his controversial remarks concerning Obama's top administration on certain policy issues. McChrystal's comments in a ‘Rolling Stone' article undermined the civilian control of the military "at the core of our democratic system," Obama said, noting that the decision to replace the general did not involve any disagreement over strategy or personal issues. General McChrystal retired after 38 years of service on July 23. Praising the general, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates termed his "slip of tongue" as a mistake. "Fight hard but be a good guest," was the mantra of the incoming Gen. Petraeus, reflecting the substance of a three-page manifesto underlying the expected behavior of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It says, "If we kill civilians or damage their property in the course of our operation, we will create more enemies than our operations eliminate. That's exactly what the Taliban want. Don't fall into their trap." However, the newly issued code of conduct seems to have been dented by recent Taliban claims resenting the reported increase in innocent civilian deaths during the latter half of July and amounts to further fueling anti-Americanism in the volatile region. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who always emphasizes Pashtun self-esteem, often threatens the U.S. of joining ranks with the Taliban and has remained jittery over the issue of frequent non-combatant civilian casualties. Apparently, it does not seem possible that the prime U.S. policy on Afghanistan-Pakistan would witness any change, nor the much propagandized change-of-guards in the complicated regional mosaic would affect its implications, particularly on Pakistan. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen has announced that the Alliance would maintain its policy in Afghanistan. While reacting to the sudden change in "enemy's" ranks, Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi reiterated that the Taliban would continue to fight against foreign troops. What Pakistan and its top brass very well needs to understand is that change in command would not reduce the pressure on Pakistan's fight against extremist insurgency. The other implications, particularly for Pakistan would be that it conveys a strong message to the world that no matter how strong and influential the military establishment is, civilian democratic government should assert authority and have the final say. Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani seems to have interpreted it right as his government has granted another full three-year term in office to the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani, asserting civilian control over defense affairs and setting a good example by brushing aside rumors, fears and controversies over this particular affair. General Kayani is well acquainted with Petraeus which adds a plus point to Pakistan's counter-terrorism efforts. Now one can expect some change in U.S. policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan, as both the outgoing and incoming American generals were poles apart in their approach and thinking. But the change in command in the war in Afghanistan would not witness a corresponding U.S. policy change towards Pakistan. U.S. pressure on the country will continue and even increase, urging it to combat terrorism and hit hard at militants' safe havens. General McChrystal seemed to be more comfortable with the Bush administration and Republican ideals. He believed in continuing confrontation with the Taliban and eliminating them through combat. He had asked for an additional 30,000 troops to keep fighting the insurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, contrary to the shifting of U.S. policy of engaging Taliban in negotiations and bringing them into mainstream politics and governance. Whereas General Petraeus with a Princeton University PhD, had helped the U.S. disengage in Iraq and shift over to Afghanistan, his presence in Afghanistan would emphasize engaging mainstream Afghan Taliban in active dialogue including Gulbaden Hekmatyar, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Mullah Omar and others, which is more compatible with the Democrats's thinking. Comparing both American generals, McChrystal had been portrayed as a true soldier, aggressive in behavior and advocating police action against extremists while Petraeus is more into limited military action and promoting diplomatic efforts as well as engaging into dialogue with those who give up violence. With his approach, Petraeus would help the U.S. reduce its presence in Afghanistan, but it does not mean that he would have a similar policy for Pakistan, something that makes the incoming commander more loved by the democrats. "It has become the conventional wisdom that the General (Petraeus) is a wonder worker," says Andrew Levine, Senior Scholar at the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies, while commenting that conventional wisdom and counter-insurgency doctrine championed by Petraeus is Vietnam all over. There would be no "quick fixes" in this particular situation as religious fanaticism would take years to wipe off or dilute the hardened mindset. The Obama administration has planned to start pulling out of Afghanistan from next year which would not be quick. If it shifts the troops load to Pakistan, as it appears, it might not change things much, as it would be the same people operating on the other side of the porous border. Hence, the still manageable issue can possibly turn into an uncontrollable problem, like Vietnam, the longer U.S. stays in Afghanistan. Opinions making the rounds in scholarly circles suggest that Afghanistan could turn into another Vietnam for the U.S., if it prolonged its stay there and failed to stop meddling in tribal affairs of the people who are accustomed to treating wounds with local remedies and resolving internal disputes through "Jirga." Attempting to shift the fight towards Pakistani Taliban in the rugged northwest tribal areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan would continue to involve the Afghan side as Pashtun ethnicity on both sides is a far stronger bond than even the faith they strongly cling to, no matter what the cost.  The writer is a political and security analyst, a senior journalist and former Political Affairs Advisor to the United States Consulate General in Karachi, Pakistan.
Syed Moazzam Hashmi is a political and security analyst, senior journalist and former political affairs advisor to the U.S. Consulate General in Karachi.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
