Afghan Journal
Lifting the veil on conflict, culture and politics
The agony of Pakistan
It must take a particularly determined lot to bomb a bus full of pilgrims, killing scores of them, and then following the wounded to a hospital to unleash a second attack to kill some more. Karachi’s twin explosions on Friday, targeting Shia Muslims on their way to a religious procession were on par with some of the worst atrocities committed in recent months.
It also came just two days after a bombing in Lower Dir, near Swat, in which a convoy of soldiers including U.S. servicemen were targeted while on their way to open a girls school. Quite apart from the fact that the U.S. soldiers were the obvious targets, the renewed violence along with fresh reports of flogging by the Taliban calls into question the broader issue of negotiating with hard-core Islamists as proposed by the Afghan government just over the border.
The blog, All Things Pakistan, captured the mood of a despairing nation. “Pakistan remains at war. Whether it school girls in Lower Dir or Shia mourners and those waiting outside Jinnah hospital in Karachi. All Pakistanis everywhere are targets for these murderous enemies of Pakistan.”
America loses soldiers in Pakistan; faces questions
With three U.S. soldiers killed in a roadside bombing in Pakistan’s troubled northwest on Wednesday, the war has just gotten hot. The bombing in which five Pakistanis also died took place in Lower Dir, an area near the Swat valley that the Pakistani military said had been cleared of the Taliban. More embarrassing, the attack raises uncomfortable questions about just what American soldiers are doing inside Pakistan. The three were part of a unit that trains Pakistani Frontier Corps responsible for security in areas near the Afghan border and may well be the first American fatalities in the effort to train Pakistani forces to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban.
No American soldiers are formally stationed in Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan or Iraq. The deaths of the three soldiers may therefore reignite debate over the role of the U.S. military in Pakistan, which has long chafed at U.S. military actions that violate its sovereignty, such as missile strikes by unmanned “drone” aircraft.
Interesting piece by Danger Room’s Noah Shachtman on how America’s “once-small, once-secret” war in Pakistan is widening.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/ 3-gis-killed-in-pakistan-when-do-we-star t-treating-this-like-a-real-war/
America seeking revenge in Pakistan for CIA raid ?
(Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud (L) sits beside a man who is believed to be Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal Al-Balawi, the suicide bomber who killed CIA agents in Afghanistan, in this still image taken from video released January 9, 2010)
The United States has carried out the most intensive series of unmanned ”Predator” drone attacks inside Pakistan’s tribal areas since the covert war began, following December’s deadly raid on a CIA base just over the border in Afghanistan. Pakistani newspapers citing interior ministry data, say there were 12 missile strikes in January fired by the unmanned Predator and Reaper planes, the highest for any single month. The highest number of attacks in a month stood at six previously, which was in December 2009. There were just two strikes in January 2009, reflecting the surge in the drone campaign to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban since the Obama administration took over last year.
The strikes began a day after the attack on the CIA base in Khost in eastern Afghanistan in which seven Americans were killed when a Jordanian suicide bomber linked to both al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban detonated his explosives inside the base. Since then the drones have been in South and North Waziristan targeting the head of the Pakistani Taliban (Tehrik-e-Taliban) Hakimullah Mehsud, who according to some reports may have been killed in a Jan.14 strike.
What a funny situation, if al-qaeda or lashkar attacks any where in the world all countries whether European or south- Asian declare it a menace for mankind, but when it is time to fight there is only american foot soldier on ground. when Mr president(Barrack Obama) announces withdrawal from afghan, complete media and world strategist says foolish move. let’s be clear those countries who cannot provide either resources or manpower, have no right to say to american’ s how to conduct this war.
Buying off Afghanistan’s “$10 fighters”
If you can’t beat the Taliban, buy them out. At last week’s conference in London, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s Western backers endorsed his latest attempt to lure away low level Taliban fighters with money and jobs, committing themselves to a $500 million fund to finance the re-integration plan. The logic is that a majority of the Taliban , 70 percent actually according to some estimates, are the so-called “$10 fighters” who do not share the leaders’ intense ideological motivation. They are driven to the Islamists because they are the only source of livelihood in a war-ravaged nation. So if you offered them an alternative, these rent-a-day foot soldiers can easily be broken.
Quite part from the fact that several such attempts have failed in the past, the whole idea that members of the Taliban are up for sale just when the insurgency is at its deadliest is not only unrealistic but also smacks of arrogance, Newsweek magazine notes in an well-argued article. It quotes Sami Yousoufsai a local journalist “who understands the Taliban as few others do” as laughing at the idea that the Taliban could be bought over.
“If the leadership, commanders, and sub commanders wanted comfortable lives, they would have made their deals long ago. Instead they stayed committed to their cause even when they were on the run, with barely a hope of survival,” the article says quoting the journalist. Now the Taliban are back in action across much of the south, east, and west, the provinces surrounding Kabul, and chunks of the north.”They used to hope they might reach this point in 15 or 20 years. They’ve done it in eight. Many of them see this as proof that God is indeed on their side.” Indeed one Taliban member reacted angrily to the idea of a buy-out. “You can’t buy my ideology, my religion. It’s an insult,”he said.
Running out of idea on how to defeat the Taliban. Guns and high-tech weapons don’t work. Now use the money and hope the Taliban will be cheap enough to leave their struggle.
But sooner or later, the invaders and their stooges in Afghanistan will realise that they cannot win. Slowly and quietly the invaders will leave Afghansitan and abandon their stooges just like najibullah sometimes ago…
Reintegrating the Taliban: where does it leave Afghan women?
At Thursday’s London conference on Afghanistan, some 60 countries will to try flesh out the details for a plan to gradually hand security to Afghans, which involves strengthening and expanding Afghan security forces, improving the way donor aid to Afghanistan is spent and reintegrating Taliban fighters. But where do women fit into these plans, especially if the Taliban are to be involved?
The plan, which has been tried in the past without much success, would involve luring low-level Taliban from the insurgency using jobs and money to re-join Afghan society. There has also been much talk, particularly in the media, about the possibility of dialogue or negotiations with the Taliban.
But many Afghan women, who remember very clearly what life was like under the Taliban from 1996 to 2001, are outraged by the idea.
On Wednesday, groups representing Afghan women warned the international community against pursuing a peace deal with the Taliban. “I have great fears, and I am greatly confused … 2001 was a very clear signal that there is no more room for conservative elements to rule in Afghanistan,” Homa Sabri of the United Nation’s agency for women, UNIFEM, told Reuters in London.
It is true that women will be marginalized for a considerable time as long the new crop do not get quality education. Special attention must be paid to educate both elders and kids alike so that all may know what is going on elsewhere in the world. Presently the population at large is cut off from rest of the world. Secondly it is necessary to fish-in those Taliban who have joined the extremist elements due to the poverty below the line. Necessary focus must also be on health, infrastructure, jobs opportunities and other civic related fields. Afghans are hard working people but lack opportunities which must be provided to them faithfully.
The Afghan conference: a meeting of victors or the vanquished ?
If you listened to some of the rhetoric in the lead-up to Thursday’s conference on Afghanistan in London and followed the coverage accompanying it, you would think it is a meeting of the victors of war.
Here we are, at a meeting attended by representatives from more than 50 countries, offering the Taliban a chance for peace before the “surge” of 30,000 additional U.S. troops hits them. They better grasp it before the tide turns decisively against them, seems to be the message. Host British Prime Minister Gordon, according to this report, vowed to “split the Taliban” while offering them a full part in the rebuilt Afghanistan if they united behind the government in Kabul.
Britain along with Japan will launch a fund at the conference, expected to total up to $500 million over the next five years, as part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s plan to lure away mid-to low level Taliban fighters from the insurgency.
The only problem with all this is the “vanquished” Taliban have not yet taken the bait. Indeed they don’t look like the vanquished, especially after making 2009 the worst year for foreign forces since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. As this piece here notes, many of the nations heading to Thursday’s conference attended a similar one, in Bonn, soon after the defeat of the Taliban more than eight years ago. They were victors then; today they are “terribly fatigued and almost bled white.”. It is not the Taliban but the most powerful nations on earth who are seeking out the insurgents to talk peace.
Promote peace talks, Afghan war is not a success
By guest writer Hanan Habibzai, an Afghan journalist and commentator based in London
The attack on Kabul on January 17, which took place only metres away from the Presidential Palace, was evidence that not only have the international community and the Afghan government failed to win the people’s hearts and minds, but also they have lost their trust. The military conflict has now reached even the heart of Kabul. It is hard to imagine anywhere safe in the whole country.
But at this time of intensification of conflict, a debate is taking place among Afghan parliamentarians questioning the presence of the US and NATO in Afghanistan. This is the anti-Western sentiment that the Taliban have for long been whispering into the ears of ordinary Afghans in the villages and valleys of the restive regions. Those Afghans who saw their children die, those who watched their women and elders in pools of blood, are increasingly becoming susceptible to this type of rhetoric. Many are in the process of changing their minds about the international troops.
The military commanders say that they have now made “protecting civilians” their priority, but just last month, 10 children were killed during a night-time raid carried out by US-special forces in eastern Kunar Province. As long as these incidents keep happening public anger against the US presence in Afghanistan will continue to grow.
What if The People of Afghanistan Could Choose Whether to Have U.S. Troops on its Soil?
Any publicity or promoting of the below proposal is appreciated. It seeks for Afghan citizens to decide for themselves via a referendum whether they wish U.S. or other foreign troops to be in their country. Besides any publicizing/promoting in the U.S., if you or colleagues know of individuals/organizations/political parties/media/government officials in Afghanistan who might help in this effort, please pass this information along. Earlier related work concerning U.S. troops in Iraq led to a relevant bill introduced to the U.S. Congress—and eventually the Iraqis decided to have such a referendum. Thanks, Neil
“The Power of Scout”
Neil Wollman; Ph. D.; Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility; Bentley University; Waltham, MA, 02452; NWollman@Bentley.edu; 260-568-0116
———————————————————————————————————————— ———————————————————————————————————————— ———————————————————————
Published on Thursday, January 7, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
What If The People Of Afghanistan Could Choose?
by Cliff Kindy & Neil Wollman
After an intense review, President Obama recently ordered about thirty thousand more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The question is, should this decision have been made by the U.S. government? The goals for the United States are to prevent an Al Qaida threat in the homeland and to stabilize the Afghan situation, allowing for some level of central government control and a face-saving withdrawal. But who else could or should have weighed in on this decision, and what are their motivations?
The Afghan government realizes that any downsizing of the U.S. presence could threaten its hold on political power. President Karzai recently stated that he expects the U.S. military presence to continue until 2024. The U.S. public is split, mainly along party lines, between those who want an early withdrawal of troops to prevent a quagmire, and those who support the U.S. military presence and fear that withdrawal would squander the investment already made.
The missing voice among these acknowledged players is that of the Afghan public. No country can impose on another a decision that country cannot abide. History is filled with attempts by strong powers to force actions upon weaker ones. This has worked sometimes in the short run, but usually crashes in the long term. The power of democracy is its dependence upon the will of the people who are impacted by a decision.
Indeed, the Afghan citizenry seems to have no say, yet is the group that stands to gain or lose the most from the U.S. occupation. Modern warfare kills and wounds more local civilians than armed actors (about 80 percent, compared to 20 percent). Yet those civilians have little or no ability to choose their own participation.
What if Afghani citizens were to determine whether the U.S. military continues a surge or withdraws troops? Certainly this is a fitting step in encouraging democracy. It would also provide the incentive for Afghanis to really own and support a chosen policy on the ground. And perhaps the Afghanis themselves know best how to create a stable nation that does not house terrorists.
In January 2010, Iraq was to hold a referendum on withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. This plan was scrapped when it became clear it would only reduce U.S. presence by a few months and so was not worth the logistic and financial costs. If a referendum on U.S. troop presence is of merit for Iraqi citizens, is it not also for Afghans, before U.S. troops become more firmly entrenched there?
Who knows what the Afghans would decide if the choice was theirs. Poll results in Afghanistan have varied by region and ethnicity, with a fairly large margin of error. But Afghanistan could hold a national binding referendum on U.S. military presence at the same time as planned parliamentary elections in September. (Given the experience of their last public vote, for president, improved preparations and precautions are needed.) First, the U.S. President or Congress must assert their intent to open a space to hear the voice of the Afghan people. They could encourage Afghan lawmakers to consider such a referendum as a way of respecting the will of the people and of seeking the support of their own citizens.
Would a referendum change the dynamics of the war? If the Afghanis voted to keep troops there, then the U.S. could expect better cooperation from the public (in both Afghanistan and the U.S.) and would be confident it is respecting the will of the citizens. (This is especially so if there is strong voter participation and the results show a wide margin.) It might also convince mainly skeptical world opinion and governments to provide more military and other aid. If the Afghanis voted against the troops remaining in Afghanistan, and the U.S. honors that, again we are respecting what Afghanis want for their own country. Then U.S. options might include undertaking training of police and military personnel; providing support for building the country’s economic, political, and educational systems; and making payments to militia in the same way that the U.S., perhaps in large part, bought its way out of an insurgency in Iraq. Significant resources could be made available in all these ways if there was no combat presence to financially support.
Our nation asserts that it sends its military overseas to protect freedoms at home and promote freedom and democracy elsewhere. The United States can take another step toward democracy in the world by encouraging it in Afghanistan—and it might even bring other benefits, as well. The United States can let the people of Afghanistan choose.
Cliff Kindy is an organic market gardener and has for the last twenty years worked frequently with Christian Peacemaker Teams in the war zones of the world. kindy@cpt.org [1]
Neil Wollman is Senior Fellow, Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social Responsibility, Bentley University, and the author of a 2005 op ed suggesting that Iraqis hold a referendum concerning U.S. troop presence. NWollman@Bentley.edu [2]
Note to readers: Please direct all communication to the Neil Wollman.
________________________________________
Article printed from http://www.CommonDreams.org
URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01 /07-8
America, don’t “leave us in the lurch” in Afghanistan
(U.S. Marines in Nimroz province, southern Afghanistan)
One of the first things that U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates did during his trip to India last week was to assure Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the United States did not intend to cut and run from Afghanistan. America was committed to Afghanistan for the long-term, he said, trying to calm Indian concerns over the Obama administration’s stated plans to begin withdrawing troops from July 2011.
It struck me as quite remarkable that India, long a prickly nation opposed to superpower presence in the region, had so openly pinned its hopes on a prolonged U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Quite a change from the time it would rail against the presence of such “extra-regional” powers.
But the world has changed and India like several other countries in the region, feels more threatened by the spread of Islamist militants than the long arm of a foreign power. Indeed while nobody likes the idea of foreign troops occupying another country, the very prospect of American withdrawal, still more than 18 months away, seems to be sending jitters. Pakistan has been saying all along its not sure how long the United States will remain engaged in Afghanistan. It reminds everyone how it was left holding the can once the U.S. turned away from Afghanistan following the withdrawal of the former Soviet Union.
Pakistan has been saying all along ‘its’ not sure how long the United States will remain engaged in Afghanistan. The word in single quotes shows the possesive form which is not right in this context: it should have been ‘it is’ or it’s, which is its contraction.
from Pakistan: Now or Never?:
Pakistan: ditching “strategic depth”
Kamran Shafi has a column up at Dawn mocking Pakistan's old strategy of seeking "strategic depth" - the idea that in the event of war with India its military would be able to operate from Afghanistan to offset its disadvantage as a small country compared to its much bigger neighbour:
"Let us presume that the Indians are foolish enough to get distracted from educating their people, some of whom go to some of the best centres of learning in the world. Let us assume that they are idiotic enough to opt for war instead of industrialising themselves and meeting their economic growth targets which are among the highest in the world. Let us imagine that they are cretinous enough to go to war with a nuclear-armed Pakistan and effectively put an immediate and complete end to their multi-million dollar tourism industry. Let us suppose that they lose all sense, all reason, and actually attack Pakistan and cut our country into half.
"Will our army pack its bags and escape into Afghanistan? How will it disengage itself from the fighting? What route will it use, through which mountain passes? Will the Peshawar Corps gun its tanks and troop carriers and trucks and towed artillery and head into the Khyber Pass, and on to Jalalabad? Will the Karachi and Quetta Corps do likewise through the Bolan and Khojak passes? And what happens to the Lahore and Sialkot and Multan and Gujranwala and Bahawalpur and other garrisons? What about the air force? Far more than anything else, what about the by now 180 million people of the country? What ‘strategic depth’ do our Rommels and Guderians talk about, please? What poppycock is this?
"More importantly, how can Afghanistan be our ‘strategic depth’ when most Afghans hate our guts, not only the northerners, but even those who call themselves Pakhtuns?"
Nuclear weapons were used once in history and no country can ever use them again. Possession of these weapons does not give a country any extra edge over others globally. All it accomplishes is in-house support for the leadership of that particular country.
Pakistan cannot be talking about exercising the nuclear option at the drop of a hat. Even if Pakistan were ever so foolish to use such a weapon, it would become an instant pariah on the international scene. No country least of all Pakistan which is so dependent on international aid can survive the fallout, UN sanctions of 1998 is a case in point. Pakistani media and its leadership need to be more responsible and less jingoistic.
The use of militant Islam as a means of low intensity aggression against any nation is not acceptable in the post 9/11 world. Pakistan therefore needs to see the writing on the wall, and dismantle these institutions which it has supported so far, to further its influence in the South Asian region. State support for religious militancy is fraught with pit-falls, as interests of a nation state are much broader than the strict and narrow ideology of a religious group or sect. It does not take much provocation for these groups to turn on the benefactor itself, Pakistan is experiencing it today!
Pakistan has to build trust in its neighborhood. It cannot continue being a local bully, teetering on the edge, using threats and nuclear coercion as the new instrument of foreign policy.
The price of greater Indian involvement in Afghanistan
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is heading to India, and one of the things Washington is looking at is how can regional players such as India do more in Afghanistan. “As we are doing more, of course we are looking at others to do more,” a U.S. official said, ahead of the trip referring to the troop surge.
But this is easier said than done, and in the case of India, a bit of a minefield. While America may expect more from India, Pakistan has had enough of its bitter rival’s already expanded role in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Indeed, Afghanistan is the new battleground on par with Kashmir, with many in Pakistan saying Indian involvement in Afghanistan was more than altruistic and aimed at destabilising Pakistan from the rear. Many in India, on the other hand, point the finger at Pakistan for two deadly bomb attacks on its embassy in Kabul.
Against such a difficult backdrop, what can New Delhi possibly do without complicating things further?
@Manish, Sanjiv,
Manish it is sad, but in 60 years, Pakistan has done nothing but maintain and honed its skill at causing agitation and becoming a parasitic international migraine.
Still, after Partition, Pakistani’s do not have a real and true sense of national identity, outside of being known as a bastion-ed fort for extremist Islam.
It seems Pakistani’s are terrified, or extremely jealous of being outclassed by India, with the exception of momentary wins in Cricket, even though India is doing goodwill work in Afghanistan.
Pakistan does not want India to make any friends through honesty and good works, simply because those types of friendship are not founded on enmity, war, fighting or common hatred of enemies, but a deeper friendship of understanding, trust, honesty, shared common values and a desire for regional brotherhood.
The Afghans have not received one iota of any redeeming gifts from Pakistan, except opportunistic meddling by the ISI and the Pak Army, who have helped create the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, to some extent.
To me, this question of even questioning India’s presence in Afghanistan is merely coddling and appeasing loud mouth pieces in Pakistan who cannot handle progress or competition by its neighbours.
I said many times earlier in my posts, over the last year that Obama, now that he is in power, like a cunning and sharp lawyer with big fangs, he will create the situation with Pakistan, that Pakistan will become incrementally more and more cornered and time goes and will be forced to fight the militant groups that they created.
Afghanistan is Pakistan’s old bone yard or recruiting ground for terrorists, since 1947. It was in 1947 that Pakistani establishment hired the Waziri Pashtun Tribesmen to rape, conquer and plunder Kashmir and take Delhi and Punjab, so as to seize them as Islamically conquered territories. Unfortunately, the greedy criminal tribesman got too caught up busy looting and raping and lost sight of their original mission for which they were hired and luckily for India, did not achieve their task.
All future aid and loans must be tied to Pakistani’s showing the world that they are measurably and transparently smashing the madrassa system, reforming their education, so as to make it modern and available to all their peoples and the constitution must be amended to make all peoples equal as human beings under the law in Pakistan.
Above all, the world must put a stop to all terror camps in Pakistan, not even one should be allowed to exist.
-
Search
Follow Afghan Journal
Demonising a nation or a people is not the purpose. The article was triggered by the blog All Things Pakistan bemoaning the way violence had taken over the land. Here’s another piece, this time from New Pakistan, that asks if Jinnah’s land has become an intolerant nation.
http://new-pakistan.com/2010/2/8/has-jin nah-s-pakistan-become-an-intolerant-nati on