Operation Enduring Freedom - USA’s attack on Taliban a venture in futility (My article published in THE NEWS on 7 October 2012)

On 7 October 2001, the US forces unleashed Operation Enduring Freedom (earlier called Infinite Justice) and attacked the Taliban Regime in Afghanistan with support of former Northern Alliance. Mazar-i-Sharif was captured on 9 November 2001, followed by control of most of northern Afghanistan, and Kabul fell on 13 November after the Taliban unexpectedly fled the city.

Though, apparently, a spectacular early tactical success, yet even after eleven years of initiation of this war, any semblance of victory seems far-fetched. Having suffered over 2000 casualties (official figure) and incurring expenditure of approximately US $ 500 billion, the USA continues to face the consequences of venturing into a country known as the graveyard of empires.  With no acceptable end to the war is in sight, operation ‘enduring freedom’ is turning into ‘enduring humiliation’ for the only super power.

On the 12^th anniversary of USA’s attack on Afghanistan, it would be worthwhile to briefly carry out an appraisal of this undertaking, where they went wrong and what course must be adopted to get out of the imbroglio.

To seek the reasons for USA’s failure in Afghanistan, we may start with the moral justification, or lack of it, for initiation of war; Use of military instrument for achievement of objectives must be the last resort when other options fail. The US policy makers, however, initiated the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that Taliban were showing flexibility and even covertly offered Bin Laden’s trial, provided evidence was provided against him. As such, right from the start, this war is seen as a manifestation of USA’s unilateralism and morally unjustified.

USA’s unilateralism was also manifested in the stance, “either you are with us or against us”. Though, as a result, countries joined the coalition, yet their troops, especially from NATO, lack motivation to fight in Afghanistan as they remain suspicious of the cause and USA’s intent. On the other hand, the Afghan Taliban are ideologically motivated, willing to die for their cause and their struggle is not ‘time barred’.

When a war is planned, the strategists must be clear as to the objectives to be achieved and in what time-frame. However, in the ongoing Afghan war, USA is either not clear or changing or has all along deceived the world about its real objectives. The initial military objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom included the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of Al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Had the coalition forces confined to achievement of these objectives, they might have been successful. However, USA, under the garb of WOT, started to pursue their long term objectives in the region, which envisage gaining and maintaining control of Central Asia for; (1) Containment of China (2) Encirclement of Iran (3) Preventing this region from becoming a formidable political bloc in the future (4) Posing a threat to Pakistan’s nuclear program. This obviously was neither acceptable to Pakistan nor other regional countries, barring India and, as such, the counter moves started. The fact that the US policy makers have chosen to rely on the Northern Alliance, a former proxy of Russia-Iran-India Nexus, to achieve the above objectives, has further compounded USA’s problems.

Attack on Iraq was yet another strategic mistake and a major diversion from USA’s stated objectives of WOT being waged in Afghanistan. It provided Taliban the much needed respite to regroup and counter attack.

While Pakistan was earnestly cooperating with the USA, despite a very heavy cost, the latter, under the influence of certain anti-Pakistan lobbies, started to play a double game by adopting a strategy which envisaged destabilization of Pakistan for forcing her leadership into submission, especially on nuclear issue (replicating erstwhile USSR model). While, for the purpose, CIA-RAW Nexus found commonality of interests with a group of militants, Pakistan countered by wooing other groups and resultantly, the WOT suffered.

Amidst this mistrust, USA’s attempt to prematurely side-line Pakistan and give India pre-eminence in the end-game was yet another wrong move, a manifestation of their long-term intent. It was also a miscalculation on their part to depend on India for taking over responsibilities in Afghanistan. Indians obviously refused to oblige, and for the right reasons. With India’s reluctance and suspicious Pakistan, the contours of end-game are gradually diminishing and USA seems to be lost.

Another major reason for USA’s failure in Afghanistan is the internal strife between the State Department and the Pentagon / CIA. Apparently, while the State Department is pursuing Obama’s policies, the Pentagon / CIA are pursuing their independent agenda, serving certain strong lobbies. Resultantly, USA committed two strategic mistakes - the surge by inducting 30000 additional troops under Pentagon's pressure and announcement of time-lines for the draw-down. Taliban neither provide any worthwhile target nor have time constraints. Consequently, the US troops are now withdrawing without any semblance of victory and little to show for their misadventure and the cost paid.

As the things stand today, the NATO countries are getting wary of this protracted war, India just wants to reap any benefits that may accrue and hesitant to share the responsibility, there is complete distrust between USA, Pakistan and Afghanistan, China and Russia have gradually started to assert in the region, Taliban are sensing victory and USA does not know what to do next.

In the obtaining scenario, the USA Administration may opt for further military escalation spilling into Pakistan, as pursued by Leon Panetta on behest of certain strong lobbies in USA, or the political reconciliation. Adoption of former course, however, would have grave ramifications for USA in the long run.

Thus, the best course for USA Administration would be to factor in the limitations and adopt a more pragmatic approach based on political reconciliation between all stake holders, road to the success of which passes through Pakistan. The sooner they sit across the table with Pakistan to sort out the irking problems, better would be for both the countries and the region. Mutual trust for such an undertaking is imperative.

Bounty on Hafiz Saeed (My article published in THE NEWS on 6th April 2012)

Normally head-money is placed on criminals / terrorists in the hiding. As such, USA has created history and given indications for the things to come, by putting head-money on Hafiz Saeed who is a free Pakistani citizen, is now trying to enter the mainstream politics and when militancy in IHK, of which India has always accused him, has slowed down. It was, thus, natural if the news came as a shocker for the entire Pakistani nation and being construed, by and large, as yet another act of unilateralism by the only super power. Why at a stage when Pak-US relations are under turbulence and the Parliament is discussing contours of future Pak-US relations, would USA take such an action and to serve what purpose, will remain a question under discussion for a few days. To understand, we need to be clear about US objectives for the 21^st century - Pursuance of US interests, interests of the allies and interests of the partners – in the same sequence. The others, in which apparently Pakistan also falls, matter less and expected to facilitate.

The Pakistani leadership assigned with the formulation of foreign policy, especially relations with USA, must understand that the latter has a well defined agenda to pursue in the region, any hindrance in that pursuit would not be tolerated and taken as a hostile act. In this regard, opening of supply routes is critically important and, as such, the announcement to put bounty on Hafiz Saeed at this stage is to give a clear-cut message to the Pakistan Government to comply, as well as, to intimidate the groups threatening its forceful closure, even if the Government permits it.

Secondly, by announcing the decision at India, the Americans have conveyed that, irrespective of the role Pakistan plays for USA, India gets pre-eminence in relations. In fact, the decision was meant to and has pleased India.

Thirdly, Difa-e-Pakistan’s rallies, of which Hafiz Saeed is one of the active members, is emerging as a small but violent force which could threaten USA’s interests in the region. Since, this out-fit is perceived to be supported by the establishment and the organization which Hafiz Saeed heads, is considered by the Americans and Indians as ISI’s proxy, we may not even rule out connivance of Pakistan Government in the decision. In a country where there is trust deficit between the institutions, anything of the sort is possible. Logically also, the kind of close relations our Government thinks it has with the US Administration, the latter should have consulted them before taking decision on Hafiz Saeed. If they have not, as the Government’s stance is, the act gives a clear indication of where the US policy makers place Pakistan in their scheme of things.

Whatever the motivation behind the decision, it is clear that USA is in no mood to play games with Pakistan, means business and would go to any extent to achieve what it wants. The Government, as the indicators are, understands it well and willing to comply, but there are parties who feel that the USA is cornered, desperately needs Pakistan’s assistance for pursuance of her objectives in the region and that we could play around with them for a while to extract maximum in return. Probably, the message is meant for the latter category.

Though, in my view, at this stage the decision is symbolic but we may not rule out the possibility of USA taking this matter to UN to put pressure on Pakistan, in case she is found non-cooperating. While the Government is not likely to give any forceful reaction and may even signal tacit approval, any retaliation by Hafiz Saeed’s followers would surely be against Pakistan’s interest and further tarnish her image. The best course for Hafiz Saeed would be to understand the obtaining international environment, get into the mainstream and take part in country’s political activities, including elections.

The Pakistan Government must understand that the noose is being tightened around Pakistan’s neck and to break loose, it must take decisions, and soon, which enhance its relevance in the international community and not those which push Pakistan further towards isolation. While we must play our cards well, we must also know the limits beyond which our brinkmanship may fail, especially if we try to base it on some negative potential. The need of the hour is to put own house in order so as to face external challenges up-front – the only option left for Pakistan.

PCNS recommendations – time to take bold decisions (My article published in THE NEWS on 4th Apr 2012)

After 9/11, Pakistan rendered unconditional support to the US forces for undertaking operations in Afghanistan. Since then, it’s a common perception that the former President Pervaiz Musharraf buckled down under US pressure and compromised on national security. While the decision would always be termed controversial, there is no doubt that those days USA’s unilateralism was at its peak, there was a strong demand in USA to avenge 9/11, that UN and the entire international community was backing USA and India had already offered all out support to the USA for action against the Taliban.

Now after over 10 years, the Americans in general are sick of war on terror, their economy is sliding down at a fast pace and USA no longer enjoys the kind of moral support to continue operations in Afghanistan or to open up a new front against Pakistan. As such, Pakistani leadership is under least pressure as compared to what Musharraf faced ten years back. However, notwithstanding the leverage the Pakistani leadership now enjoys, it must refrain from rhetoric which some of our politicians are resorting to for self projection. It is time for the political leadership to be the architects of Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially vis-a-vis USA, and they must ensure that the decisions on the PCNS recommendations are taken in the best national interest keeping the bigger picture in mind, giving due cognizance to the internal situation, the regional scenario and the international environment. A few aspects which we normally hesitate to discuss on the media but must be given due consideration while taking decisions on future Pak-US relations, are covered in the succeeding paragraphs.

USA HAS ALREADY GIVEN ITS EXIT PLAN FROM AFGHANISTAN AND COMMITTED TO WITHDRAWAL OF ITS FORCES BY 2014. THOUGH DOUBTS DO EXIST ABOUT THEIR SINCERITY, PAKISTAN MUST PROVIDE WHATEVER FACILITIES ARE NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSE AND MUST NEVER GIVE AN EXCUSE TO THE AMERICANS TO PROLONG THEIR STAY IN AFGHANISTAN DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF SUPPLY OR WITHDRAWAL ROUTES. PAKISTAN MAY EVEN SEEK AND WELCOME UN’S ROLE IN THIS REGARD.

Pakistan enjoys immense geo-strategic importance as a gate-way to Central Asia and beyond.  Accordingly, Balochistan, today, has gained a centre stage as a future ‘international strategic corridor’, a development which Pakistan can exploit to her advantage. Pakistan’s unwillingness to oblige may result into foreign sponsored surge in Independent Balochistan movement, having serious ramifications for Pakistan’s integrity.

USA has developed a strategic partnership with India and vying to carve out a role for her in Afghanistan, a major reason of recent animosity between Pakistan and USA. In my view, however, this fear is ill-founded as, I am sure, Indian leadership is not that naive so as to take the risk of directly confronting the Taliban and face the consequences. With India in, if they do, the endgame in Afghanistan would surely be a far-fetched dream. The Americans, as well as the Indians, know it.

THE PARLIAMENTARIANS MUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THE STATUS OF ISAF AND US FORCES OPERATING IN AFGHANISTAN, BECAUSE IN GENERAL PERCEPTION THEY MAY BE CONSIDERED AS OCCUPATION FORCES, WHEREAS, THE HARD REALITY IS THAT THESE FORCES ARE MANDATED BY UN AND FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE LEGITIMATE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT. SECONDLY, EVEN IF THE PAKISTANI MASSES PERCEIVE THE ISAF / US AS OCCUPATION FORCES, DO THE MAJORITY OF AFGHANS ALSO FEEL THE SAME WAY AS WE MUST REMAIN RELEVANT TO THE AFGHAN PEOPLE IN THE ENDGAME? IN ANY CASE, AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A PAKISTANI SATELLITE AND HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE ITS OWN DECISIONS.

In the third week of November 2011, an Afghan Jirga comprising 2000 representatives agreed on strategic partnership with United States. Unfortunately, the jirga did not demand withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan as a pre-condition and instead demanded that the USA must side with Afghanistan if a third country tried to attack it.  We should have no doubt as to what was meant by the ‘third country’. This is the kind of hostility we have earned in the last ten years because of our role in Afghanistan, a strategy which needs to be reversed. 

The parliamentarians must also take cognizance of the fact that in Pakistan’s chequered history, it’s probably the first time that US Administration is inclined to deal with the political leadership instead of the military establishment. As such, while peoples’ perceptions may influence but should never dictate the decision-making, which must be based on prudence, realism and in the best national interest.     

WHILE FINALIZING THE CONTOURS OF OUR FUTURE RELATIONS WITH THE USA, WE MUST ALSO KEEP IN MIND THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN PAKISTAN’S ECONOMY AND THE INFLUENCE IT HAS ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

And finally, since foreign policy flows from internal dynamics, in these defining moments, WE AS A NATION HAVE TO DECIDE ONCE AND FOR ALL WHETHER TO REMAIN RELEVANT TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OR BE ISOLATED, GIVEN USA’S LEVERAGE THE WORLD OVER. For making the right choice, rhetoric apart, we must critically deliberate on the factors that impinge on our sovereignty and have put us in a state we are in. In this regard, the media must play a very positive role to educate and not agitate the masses, without fear of reprisals from the terrorists. In my considered view, we have no choice but to put our own house in order if we are to face the external challenges up front. An internally destabilized, religiously polarized, ethnically divided, economically unviable and foreign aid dependent nation, led by inapt / corrupt leadership, has to relinquish its sovereignty and that is the issue we need to tackle at priority and if we can do that, the others, including USA, would automatically start respecting our sovereignty.       

THUS, BARRING RECOMMENDATIONS ON FOREIGN SPIES AND PROVISION OF BASES WHICH SHOULD NOT EVEN BE CONSIDERED AS OPTIONS, DECISIONS ON THE REMAINING, INCLUDING THE REOPENING OF SUPPLY ROUTES MAY BE TAKEN IN THE LARGER NATIONAL INTEREST, AS PER DICTATES OF THE GROUND REALITIES AND WITHOUT FEAR OF US’S UNILATERALISM OR INTIMIDATION BY THE TERRORISTS. SHYING AWAY FROM TAKING DECISIONS AT THIS CRITICAL STAGE, AS SOME OPPOSITION PARTIES ARE RESORTING TO ON ONE PRETEXT OR ANOTHER, WOULD BE EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR NATIONAL CAUSE.