| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| Rival aims hindering Afghan theatre of battle |
| 2005-07-09 |
| The shooting down by the Taleban of a Chinook transport helicopter packed with US Special Forces close to the border with Pakistan has once again raised the spectre of increased three way tensions between Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States. At least 16 Americans were killed in what was the largest loss of American lives in Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taleban in 2001. Many Afghan and some senior American officials insist that the resurgent Taleban are finding sanctuary and support from elements in Pakistan. The diplomatic tensions are not surprising. It's been the bloodiest summer in Afghanistan for four years. And other pressures have been piling up on Islamabad after comments by US Vice President Dick Cheney and CIA Chief Porter Goss that they know where Osama Bin Laden is and that he is not in Afghanistan. Both seem to be saying that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. While Afghan leaders feel vindicated by such comments and have stepped up their criticism of Islamabad, Pakistan has taken acute umbrage. On 21 June President George W Bush telephoned President Pervez Musharraf and urged him to talk to President Karzai to stave off a worsening diplomatic crisis between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The bout of telephone diplomacy temporarily cooled down the war of words but tensions have continued to simmer. The reality is that a complex three way game between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan has gone on since 11 September. It has been dominated by their ruling elites' self-interest veiled as national interest, rather than any alliance against terrorism. The tug of war between their conflicting interests continues to hamper joint efforts to combat terrorism and provide a serious commitment to furthering nation and democracy building. For President Bush the priority has been capturing Bin Laden and other senior al- Qaeda leaders, overriding concerns about nation building in Afghanistan or carrying out a strategic plan to prevent a Taleban resurgence. For the first two years after the defeat of the Taleban the US committed hopelessly meagre resources to rebuilding Afghanistan and had few intentions to re-establish state institutions such as the army and police, preferring to rely on warlords to keep the peace. Even the US priority of capturing Bin Laden became secondary as military manpower and surveillance facilities were shifted from Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. Mr Karzai has resented past US strategy as he has viewed the major threats to Afghanistan and his own political survival as emanating from a resurgent Taleban backed by Pakistan and Afghanistan's warlords. For him the actual threat was posed by al-Qaeda was minimal. Mr Karzai also considered the war in Iraq as extremely dangerous for Afghanistan's future because it provided a major and unnecessary diversion of the West's resources and commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. However due to his indecisiveness Mr Karzai never pushed the envelope with the Americans to see the realities on the ground. Moreover his overweening dependence on the Americans has angered conservatives at home and his neighbours. Rather than use US clout to build a regional alliance with his neighbours and persuade them to stop interfering in Afghanistan, he signed a strategic partnership pact with Bush in May just as tens of thousands of Afghans were demonstrating against the US for its treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. American frustration with Mr Karzai rests on his failure to build an organized political base for himself, despite the success of last year's presidential elections. Now he goes into the parliamentary elections in September without a political party, a national platform or a clear ideology. By blaming Pakistan for his problems he takes the heat off his own political shortcomings. Pakistan's military regime has certainly - despite diplomatic denials - provided sanctuary and support to the Taleban since they retreated into Pakistan after their defeat in 2001. Gen Musharraf has played a determined double game with the Americans convinced that this is in the army's interest. Islamabad knows its alliance with the US is short term, predicated on the war on terror - as long as it lasts. Washington's real interest is in building up rival India as a bulwark in the region - something the Pakistani military is desperate to delay if not scuttle. Thus the military feels it has every reason to keep the Americans bogged down in Afghanistan by sustaining the Taleban, while keeping Washington on side by helping hunt down al-Qaeda. Although the military has lost over 500 troops in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) hunting down the Arab and Central Asian components of al- Qaeda, it has not moved at all in Balochistan province where the Taleban have re-established themselves. Nor has the military suppressed those Pakistani extremist groups fighting for the Taleban or in Kashmir. It is also in the military's self-interest to keep Bin Laden alive and on the run, even if it does not do so deliberately. This political game has gone on for far too long and had led to Islamic militancy thriving in the region. In order to defeat militancy all three players have to create better mechanisms of levelling with each other - discussing their priorities, their concerns and perceived national interest. As long as the players pull in different directions - the Taleban and al-Qaeda will thrive. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |
| #6 agreed on creating a new LOC on the Afghan-Paki border. In fact, call it exactly that, just to piss off the MMA, and declare hot pursuit in operation (via massive artillery and B2's). A swath of off-limits land in which you enter and declare your life forfeit. Only transit via enforced checkpoints allowed (smuggling, taliban infiltration will still happen, but now it's "lay waste to violators and STFU to the next of kin") |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-07-09 18:57 |
| #5 Managable that can move to unmanageable at any time. I say carpet bomb the border any time Pakistani Talaban cross it. Most of the "fighters" are not even Afghan they are Pakistani. The ISI is up to it's neck in involvement and they are the ones protecting OBL as well. Anything done by the WakiPaki is mere window dressing. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-07-09 13:27 |
| #4 Sorry, .com, but I disagree -- not that the Pakiwakis aren't asstards, they are. But cleaning the place out now is a low priority for us. We need to deal with 1) Syria 2) Iran 3) N Korea 4) Egypt and 5) Saudi-controlled Arabia before we even think of dealing with the Pakiwakis. They're asstards, but they're managable asstards. For now. Just my opinion. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-07-09 13:11 |
| #3 Give the Afghans and the Paks one month to clear the border region and then kill anything that moves within 10 miles of the border. Sovereignty be damned. |
| Posted by: Neutron Tom 2005-07-09 11:13 |
| #2 What .com said. Always remember the Pakiwakis, especially the ISI, are playing their own game. |
| Posted by: Spot 2005-07-09 09:34 |
| #1 Just my untutored take, but... Time to cut to the chase with Pakistan. Those 16 men who died in the Chinook crash are worth more than all of the intel we have gotten from asshats captured with PakiWaki assistance in my math. Simply put, no more deals with asshats, Period. No accomodation. No games. Everything above board. PakiWakiLand is a shithole, a bubbling pot teeming with Islamonutz vying for Asstard of the Month honors. The ISI is obviously well beyond Pervy's control - and it is the foundation underlying the whole game. They "control" (as far as that term is applicable) PakiWakiLand, not Pervy, and they are our enemies. Period. Full stop. No arms, no more aid, no more debt cancellations, no more nothing. Treat PakiWakiland exactly as we do Iran and Syria. Conduct military ops with that as the baseline. I don't want to lose anyone else to this circle-jerk of conflicting Islamonutz and Warlord games - one is too many. The mid and lower level US Military and SF Teams know who they trust - and who they don't. Bush and Rummy and Goss and the Afghan Theater Commander should step back and let the guys at the pointed end create the policy and ROE. No one else knows shit, compared to them. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-09 05:49 |