Wednesday 6 June 2012

Lessons from Afghan imbroglio by Inayatullah

The international summit held in Kabul ended on a note of uncertainty. The pledge that the Afghan troops could takeover responsibility for military operations by 2014 has lost its edge. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: “The transition to Afghan-led security would be based on conditions not calendars. Our mission will end when – but only when – the Afghans are able to maintain security on their own.”
President Barack Obama, after a lot of consultations and analysis, committed himself and his administration to start the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by July 2011 – Washington having come close to the conclusion that war in Afghanistan just cannot be won.
A move was set afloat to reintegrate insurgents and hold talks with the Taliban. Even an amount of $180 million was earmarked initially for this purpose. Afghan President Hamid Karzai had already initiated a process of negotiations. However, he now has the formal American backing for it. A major reason for the slow pace of troop withdrawal is the line taken by the new Chief of the allied forces in Afghanistan.
It seems that General David Patreaus is anxious to achieve some success with the increase in the number of US troops. The “surge” so far has not yielded desired results, Patreaus hopes to capture some of the enemy territory with a view to establishing his hold on Afghanistan.
The recent killings of American and British soldiers have, however, added to the apprehension that training of the Afghan army is failing to accomplish the plan which was to develop an effective instrument to restore and maintain peaceful conditions in the war torn country. In the latest incidents, it was the Afghan soldiers who had killed the American and British personnel.
The unsatisfactory performance of the Afghan troops and the ISAF forces has prompted US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks during her recent visit to Kabul: “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible.”
Looking at the devastation perpetrated by the American and other coalition forces for the last many years, one indeed wonders what the US has achieved in Afghanistan.
Have scores of billions of dollars spent on military operations and in bolstering the weak and corrupt Karzai government, yielded political security and any worthwhile socio-economic development? Are the Afghans now in a better position to stand on their own and manage their affairs effectively? Has their dependence on foreign aid and drugs been reduced? Have the security conditions in the country improved? The Americans themselves aver that Al-Qaeda stands fragmented and weakened as hardly a hundred or so of its followers are present in Afghanistan.
If this is the case, why is it that more than one hundred thousand American soldiers, including armed forces from other countries, continue to occupy Afghanistan? Why it is not realised that the vast majority of the population consisting of Pakhtuns is dead against the foreign occupation of their country, and no amount of military aggression and doling out dollars will deter them from fighting for their freedom.
History bears testimony to their fierce sense of independence. The British and the Russians have tried to forcibly subdue them but have failed miserably. Wisdom demands that the Americans accept their failure and quit as early as possible.
What the Americans and the British have done in Iraq is unpardonable. They used deceit and lies to build up a case to attack the country. Even after so many years, peace and security there remains a distant dream. Every other day, suicide attacks take place. A ramshackle democracy has been imposed on the people. Elections held a month ago have yet to result in the formation of a new government. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been sunk in this horrendous adventure.
The recent testimony given by the former head of M15, Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, to the Chilcot Enquiry Commission is an eye-opener. She has rebutted the former UK Prime Minister’s assertion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that chemical or biological weapons could be activated in 45 minutes. She said: “We regarded the direct threat from Iraq as low.
We didn’t believe Saddam had the capacity to do anything in the UK.” Now a word about the statement issued on January 29, 2003: “There have been some Al-Qaeda operatives in parts of Iraq, controlled by Baghdad.”
Manningham-Buller in her evidence has categorically stated: “There was no credible intelligence to suggest that connection….Arguably, we gave Osama Bin Laden his Iraqi Jihad, so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not there before.” She added: “Our involvement in Iraq radicalised…a generation of young people…who saw our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as being an attack on Islam….We were pretty well swamped, more than what we could cope with.”
This evidence coming from the prestigious chief of a major intelligence agency of the United Kingdom leaves little doubt that it is not democracy or other much acclaimed laudable objectives that prompted the imperial powers to attack weaker and smaller countries but their vested interests and ulterior motives which drove them to extend control of foreign territories and capture strategic resources.
If at all there was a reason for an attack on Afghanistan after Nine Eleven, was the disproportionate use of force for such an extended period justified? The death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, the uprooting of millions of them along with enormous destruction of property has not quenched the thirst for a wanton and unjustified occupation of foreign lands.
Pakistan is being pressed to extend the military operation to North Waziristan and other parts of the country.
A drastic review of the current policy must be undertaken and a debate initiated in Parliament. We cannot afford to continue to pursue a foreign agenda, killing our own people as poorly paid mercenaries.

0 comments:

Post a Comment