The preceding item deals with NATO's conundrum on how to stop killing so many Afghan civilians in the war with the Taliban. However we also need to accept that we're not going to defeat the Taliban militarily and that this war will drag on, if the Karzai government can survive, until there are some fundamental changes involving Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
Malcolm Rifkind, former British foreign secretary and secretary of state for defence, laid it all out recently in The Independent:
"...when under pressure the Taliban, and their al-Qa'ida colleagues, retreat to the wild frontier area on the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In these regions, nominally part of Pakistan, the writ of Islamabad does not run, and the rebels can find respite, reorganise, train and recruit.
"... it is widely known that elements within Pakistan, particularly in the army and the intelligence service, are either helping the Taliban or, at least, are turning a blind eye to them.
"...the United States and Britain are at fault for not fully understanding why the Pakistanis are reluctant to dismantle the Taliban. It is not because of any sympathy for terrorism or admiration of al-Qa'ida, a distinct organisation from the Taliban. It is because of longstanding Pakistani national interests that have been largely ignored by the West.
"The first point to realise is that the frontier between Pakistan and Afghanistan has never been recognised by successive Afghan governments, and remains a bone of contention. Given that the Pashtun and Baluchi people straddle the border, this has alarming implications for Islamabad.
"The Pashtuns are the leading tribal grouping in Afghanistan and there have been several insurgencies by the Baluchis in Pakistan's southernmost province. The issue is, however, even more complicated, linked as it is to the dispute between Pakistan and India over Kashmir, and to wider India-Pakistan relations.
"During the Cold War, the Afghan monarchy allied itself with the Soviet Union and India in an attempt to obtain weapons to use against the Pakistanis, who were, in turn, supplied by the United States. The Indians, for their part, were happy to see a Pakistan weakened and distracted by frontier problems on their western border.
"Against this background, the Pakistanis, who have always been sensitive about the integrity of their state, welcomed the Taliban as they were religious fundamentalists, not Pashtun nationalists, and therefore had no claim on Pakistani territory.
"The five years of Taliban rule in Kabul were the only exception to 60 years of poor Afghan-Pakistani relations since 1948. Barnett Rubin, a regional analyst, has remarked that from a Pakistani perspective Taliban rule is very acceptable: 'An unstable Afghanistan is the second-best option to a stable one ruled by your friends.'
"If the United States and Britain want more wholehearted co-operation from Pakistan they need to work with the grain of Pakistani self-interest. This could be achieved in three ways. First, Mr Karzai and his government must be pressed to recognise the current frontier with Pakistan, known as the Durand Line. Second, India should be encouraged to reduce its presence in Afghanistan. It has opened two consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad. The Pakistanis fear that these are being used as bases from which to foment mischief. Third, Musharraf must be encouraged to introduce more normal politics into Waziristan and the frontier areas. At present, political parties are banned, giving Islamic jihadists and their allies a free run at winning local hearts and minds.
"Winning in Afghanistan means defeating the Taliban and al-Qa'ida in Helmand. It means winning the support of the Afghan people through social reform and economic growth. But all that effort may be wasted if the frontier region of Pakistan remains a safe haven."
If you've read this far you may have the sinking feeling that we've misplayed our hand in Afghanistan for the last six years. That leaves us having to decide whether we just write that off and start again or accept our defeat and try to work out some deal between Kabul and the Taliban - just like the Kabul government wants.
2 comments:
Perhaps "winning" was never the real goal - just instability...
Afghan Instability: A Scorched Earth Geo-Political Strategy
http://afghaniblog.livejournal.com/61791.html
ARTICLE SUMMARY:
Dr. Mehmet Seyfettin EROL is a senior researcher and Head of Central Asian Studies at USAK
Questions posed:
“Why has the Trans-Afghan project not been realized yet?”
“Why has Afghanistan’s security and stabiliy not been achieved?”
“How long this situation will last?”
Success in Afghanistan (from a Russian perspective) means an important blow to the US’s Central Asia adventure and a competitive advantage in the energy wars. Russia with the support of General Dostum, Fahim and groups once related to Northern Alliance, may try to regain previously lost opportunities.
The US is aware if this and is leading the region in to new instabilities.
Foremost sources of instability are the disputes between Afghanistan-Pakistan, Pakistan-Iran. Consequently by stirring up “controlled crises”, US is continuing its existence in the region and showing her intention of taking initiatives in the regional sense.
Within this framework, and under US initiative, the realisation of a Trans-Afghan Project is less probable, with some experts claiming that the whole project is “dead”.
It is almost apparent that the US has been trying to freeze the project for some time. So to achieve this goal, the US is acting in a manner that is helping to inflate of problems between Pakistan and its neighbours Afghanistan, Iran and India.
Some of the possible reasons for US’s wish to suspend the project (through instability) are as follows:
1- governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan are risky countries for US energy security
2- instability is the “justification” of US existence in the region
3- instability impedes regional cooperation projects
4- instability will continue regional “energy security” problems and maintain Indian and regional dependence on US
5- instability will sustain the high energy costs and so, slow development in the region
6- the Iran problem has not been solved yet
Until US achieves success in its own plans for the political and geographical framework of the region - , the future of the “Afghan problem” and Trans-Afghan Pipeline Project will not improve in the foreseeable future.
The countries participating in both the pipeline project and those dealing with “the Afghan problem” are well aware of this situation.
Another good recent article, "Canada in Afghanistan" is here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann06052007.html
Post a Comment