THE REAL THREAT IS AMERICA BY MUHAMMAD JAMIL

The most significant part of Obama’s speech was his acknowledgement that “success in Afghanistan was inextricably linked to Washington’s partnership with Pakistan”. Secondly, he has satisfied his Generals by ordering deployment of 30,000 additional troops and also appeased the American public by announcing the pullout to start from 2011Contradictory and conflicting statements from members of the Obama administration and US Generals smack of their bewilderment due to their failure in achieving their objectives in Afghanistan. The fact remains that the US-led invaders had descended on Afghanistan vowing to take Osama bin Laden dead or alive, finish off his al Qaeda network, topple the Taliban and get their leaders Mullah Omar and his senior companions, but except toppling the Taliban they failed on every count. They seem to be utterly confused and tend to confuse others with a view to keep them guessing about their real intent. Some observers are of the opinion that there is lack of coordination between the various organs of the state and they are not on the same page. Talking to CBS News in ‘Face the Nation’, Defence Secretary Robert Gates said: “The US would not pursue Taliban leaders in Pakistan and it is up to Islamabad to address the threat posed by militants on its territory.” His comments followed a report that the White House had granted authority to the CIA to expand a bombing campaign in Pakistan by unmanned aircraft to strike Taliban and al Qaeda figures. On the other hand, US National Security advisor James Jones referring to intelligence reports said that the al Qaeda chief is somewhere inside North Waziristan and would take him on whenever intelligence became available about his exact location. And nobody should have any confusion that in case the US knew about them, the US would have bombed, what they call, al Qaeda leaders’ ‘sanctuaries’ in Quetta. For some time rumours abound that indirect talks are being held between the US and the Taliban, courtesy Saudi Arabia. On November 5, 2009, US special envoy Richard Holbrooke had said that the Taliban could rejoin the social and political fabric of Afghanistan if they renounce al Qaeda. A spokesman of the Taliban has more than once contradicted those reports, stating that there is no question of entering into negotiations with the occupiers. Despite denials from both sides, there are indications of indirect contacts between the US and Taliban leadership. If it is so, the move can be described as sensible, as whatever semblance of normality in Iraq one sees today is because the Shia majority has the chance to rule the country, and at the same time efforts were made to address the grievances of the Sunni minority. In Afghanistan, right from the beginning the ‘basics’ were wrong. Though President Hamid Karzai is Pashtun, most members of his cabinet and many governors are non-Pashtuns. In other words, the Pashtuns have been pushed against the wall and the minority from the Northern Alliance is ruling. That needs to be corrected; otherwise peace will remain an illusion. The Pashtuns have not been given the chance to join the police or the Afghan Army.President Obama’s new policy has apparently been designed to bring this war to a successful conclusion, as he was under tremendous pressure from US Generals to send at least 40,000 troops to Afghanistan if the war was to be won. On the other hand, there was a lobby under Vice President Joe Biden opposing the surge, who wanted shifting of ‘base’ from Afghanistan to Pakistan to control the region from Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics by placing more reliance on drones and missile attacks. Obama ordered deployment of an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and defied predictions that in his new strategy, India would be given a pivotal role in Afghanistan. One did not hear a single word about India during his speech; however, it could be a deliberate attempt to keep certain things under wraps on the pretext of addressing Pakistan’s concerns.The most significant part of Obama’s speech was his acknowledgement that “success in Afghanistan was inextricably linked to Washington’s partnership with Pakistan”. Secondly, he has satisfied his Generals by ordering deployment of 30,000 additional troops and also appeased the American public by announcing the pullout to start from 2011. Obama’s resolve to build a partnership with Pakistan on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual trust is appreciable, but in view of Pakistan’s past experience it is doubtful that his ideas would go beyond noble sentiments in the presence of conservatives and remnants of the Bush administration around him. At a time when Pakistan’s armed forces have successfully dismantled the terrorists’ infrastructure in Swat and Malakand Division, and in South Waziristan the military operation has entered the final phase, there are odious calls from Britain, India and the US. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had lashed out at Pakistan two days before Prime Minister Gilani’s visit to the UK, stating that British lives were at risk by harbouring Osama bin Laden. Speaking at the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad, he said the al Qaeda leader and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri are living in Pakistan and its security services must hunt them down. By giving this statement, he had tried to put Pakistan under pressure, especially when President Obama was preparing to announce the deployment of 30,000 more soldiers to Afghanistan. In a recently released US Senate report it has been admitted that Osama bin Laden escaped to Pakistan though he was within the grasp of US troops in 2001 at Tora Bora. But the problem was that the US did not have enough boots on ground at that time and there was fear of heavy casualties. It will not be an exaggeration to say that it was because of their cowardice that they let the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership slip over to Pakistan. However, the American surge in troops is rattling many minds as to what indeed are America’s real intentions about Afghanistan. President Obama may not want the American forces to stay on in Afghanistan for long, but the situation on the ground will determine whether American forces stay there, have a graceful exit, or are forced to leave, as happened in Vietnam when American officers and soldiers were scampering to catch C-130 flights and helicopters. With the ignominious defeat in Vietnam in the 1970s and then the 9/11 events, the invincibility of present-day America was shredded. Instead of identifying the reasons why many people in the world hate America and addressing the grievances of other countries, former president George Bush had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, inviting retaliation and hostilities. The US has spent more than one trillion dollars on these two misadventures. The financial meltdown and recession has brought America to the brink. The mess owed its origins to the time when the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, and the US left it to the CIA to run affairs, which operated with the help of the Northern Alliance. Of course, there were civil war-like conditions, with various groups fighting to have control of the country. As the people of Afghanistan wanted peace, the Taliban used their contradictions and were able to take control of at least 90 percent of the country. Even now after eight years of the US and its allies’ presence, the Taliban control at least 60 percent of Afghanistan. If history is any guide, nobody should make long term plans to stay in Afghanistan. If the US is looking for an honourable exit, it should facilitate the Northern Alliance and Pashtuns to agree on a working relationship to avoid civil war.Syndicated columnist George Will in his recent column quoted military historian Max Hastings: “Kabul controls only about a third of the country — control is an elastic concept — and Afghans may prove no more viable than were the Vietnamese, the Saigon regime.” It is well known that Afghanistan never had a strong central government; it does not have industry to provide jobs to the unemployed. Secondly, its entire economy is based on illegal production of poppy, which the US and NATO forces have failed to stop. To make things worse, corruption has eaten into the vitals of the state organs. There is a general perception in the US and elsewhere that President Karzai has failed to rein in the warlords, drug producers and drug-traffickers. So far as Pakistan is concerned, it does not have a palpable threat from extremists and terrorists, as the Pakistan army has successfully taken them on. However, the real threat is from the US, because the Jewish lobby and the Indian lobby have not been able to stomach Pakistan’s nuclear capability.The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at mjamil1938@hotmail.com