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.

The deadly political impasse (My article published in The NEWS on 17th January 2012 )

Today, Pakistan faces a deadly political impasse with grave ramifications. The players include the government, opposition, judiciary, the Armed Forces, media, the masses and finally the foreign hand. To understand the nature of imbroglio and solution thereof, we need to be clear where each stakeholder stands today, what it is striving for and what must be done to sail through.

Starting with PPP led coalition government, which includes PPP, ANP, PML (Q) and MQM; The PPP, though enjoys strong support from USA because of the services rendered, has failed on the domestic front in every sphere of governance, involvement in corruption, destroying institutions, perpetual defiance to judiciary, stand-off with the Army, a recent development, and bringing the country to the brink of economic disaster, and, as such, has nothing to go to the masses and now vying to become political martyrs for gaining sympathy vote. And since martyrdom is not in sight, their frustration is growing with each passing day. Their only option is to take advantage of the little time they are left with, coupled with the short memory of the masses, and at least try to give a semblance of governance, besides curbing the tendency to deal politically the judicial matters confronted by the leadership. ANP, if ‘Railways’ is any gauge of their performance, has no option but to go along with PPP. PML (Q), in either case is facing extinction, and as such, should merge with either PPP or PML (N), using its well known art of ‘dealings’. In my reckoning they would be better of aligning with their parent party, if nothing else, for this country’s sake. The MQM, however, faces a dilemma - the day PPP is strong enough, MQM will be the likely target and, I am sure, their leadership knows it. As such, their survival is to stand on high moral grounds and must delink themselves from Government’s misdeeds.

The second stakeholder is the opposition; which is symbolized by Nawaz Sharif who, besides being a man of less than average intelligence, is suffering from a kind of ‘military takeover phobia’. These weaknesses have been successfully exploited by President Zardari and he, till recently, played the role of a friendly opposition. Still undecided, the opposition needs to get its act together. It’s now or never situation and time for redemption. En-masse resignations from the assemblies may save the day for them and for the country.   

The third stakeholder, Judiciary; though it has given some landmark decisions, yet the apex court is gradually losing moral ascendency and faith in the ‘revamped’ judiciary is dwindling because of, firstly, its inability to rein-in those bent upon maligning its image and, secondly, inability to get its decisions implemented on some important cases, for fear of political fall-out. Even the six options given in the NRO implementation case are a manifestation of expediency, as the infamous ‘law of necessity’. They have little time left to assert. 

The Armed Forces; This institution, till a few years back, could be ascribed as the center of gravity of this country - the status undergoing dilution with each passing day. The nation at large, which has invested and continues to invest in the Armed Forces, has great expectations from this institution. As such, despite successful operations in Swat and South Wazirstan, the masses were jolted by the intelligence, operational and security related failures as manifested in terrorist attacks on GHQ, Parade Lane, Mehran Base and, most significant, the 2nd May incident, having serious ramifications for the country. Besides, as the ensuing developments indicate, the strategy supposedly being followed by the military vis-à-vis USA has back fired and the Armed Forces have failed (at least in perception) in what the media calls ‘performance audit’. Sensing an opportunity, the ruling elite, with support of USA against some commitments, is trying to undermine the Army as an institution and, thus, a stand-off. The military leadership must continue to display restraint against ongoing provocations, perform on ground to thwart threats to Pakistan’s security, their primary responsibility, and concentrate on their professional pursuits – their only option to emerge victorious from the impasse. 

The fifth stake holder, the media; Till recently, the media played a very constructive role in highlighting the shortfalls in governance and institutional failures and acted as an independent and impartial monitoring body. However, the power it has started to generate for affecting changes, has also made it vulnerable to ‘enticements and coercion’, resulting into affiliations and lack of objectivity, though still not very pronounced. To those who have certain ‘motivation’ for taking sides, I would only request that they must shun pursuit of personal gains and play an impartial role as the stakes are too high – on media the future course of this country depends. 

Sixth stake holder, the masses; though in democracies, the people are masters of their destiny, in Pakistan, they have abdicated this privilege by remaining indifferent, and, as such, do not matter in the scheme of things. They must begin to assert and strive to break the shackles of subservience, or they would remain condemned to oblivion, as hither to.

Finally, the foreign hand, USA; for achievement of their long term objectives in the region, it is imperative that Pakistan must be ruled by a pliant leadership which must remain subservient to their demands. Contrary to previous practice of relying on military dictators, this time, they are betting on the civilian political leadership for the purpose and would go all out to protect the interests of their ‘assets’. However, since their strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan hinges on a ‘sold out’ leadership, it would mean more extremism and would ultimately be counter-productive. They must play a positive role in strengthening democracy to ensure a stable Pakistan, which is in everybody’s interest.