Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Mistake of Afghanizing Pakistan
We cannot expect Pakistan to do what America could not
As Pakistan begins an all-out air and land assault on its own people and its president asks America for drones, we must ask: Can Pakistan succeed in defeating the Taliban when America has not?
We must consider that if America, with its military might, satellites and well-equipped soldiers has not been able to stop the Taliban from crisscrossing the Afghan-Pakistan border in the last seven years, we cannot expect Pakistan to be able to accomplish that for us.
As a child living in southern Pakistan, hundreds of miles away from Afghanistan, I used to watch the camel caravans of Afghans as they descended on our town at the beginning of winter. One or two families with children would be riding on a few camels as the men walked along. The rest of the camels would be carrying firewood to sell to the locals. Although that was forty years ago, the cultural ties between the two people are still essentially the same.
There is literally no border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, or, for that matter, between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Yes, there are soldiers on a couple of roads entering each country, but overall, these are open borders.
People living on both sides of Afghanistan's border are tribally and linguistically the same. They have crossed between the countries freely for centuries.
And America knows this.
America used this knowledge to its advantage when it trained, financed, equipped and guided Afghans to defeat the occupying Soviet Union in the 1980s. These Mujahideen - then allies in America's war against communism by proxy - were Afghan refugees trained in Pakistan by the CIA. That began thirty years ago, not after 9/11.
This is why we cannot plead ignorance. We knew the region well enough. However, that knowledge did not help us stop Osama bin Laden and his friends from getting away during the Battle of Tora Bora.
Tora Bora is a cave complex in eastern Afghanistan originally built with the assistance of the CIA during the Mujahideen's resistance against Soviet occupation. Osama bin Laden and the CIA both being allies at one point, knew it well.
The U.S. believed that bin Laden and his allies were hiding in Tora Bora, but despite overrunning it, we failed to kill or capture him or his supporters. It is amazing that after seven years of using our cutting edge technology and spies, and a $50 million dollar bounty, we still don't know where he is and whether he is even dead or alive.
So if knowledge of the area is not the problem, then why did we succeed in defeating the Soviets but not the Taliban?
The answer lies in the support of the region's people and the advantage the terrain provides to them.
In the war against the Soviets, people on both sides of the Afghan border were in favor of it. This time they are not. Consider that in the 1980s, we did not have to enter the country to fight the Soviets. The local support meant we could "outsource" the actual fighting to those who shared our ideals and knew the territory best.
Fast forward to today: not only do we lack this acceptance for our goals in the region, but we are actually fighting in its rugged, high terrain that is ideal for guerrilla warfare, unlike the flat plains of Iraq.
If America cannot stop the Taliban from crossing the borders it controls, there is no chance Pakistan will be able to do the same.
We are making a deadly and costly mistake by trying to coerce Pakistan to achieve what we have failed to do. President Barack Obama has been reaching out to the Muslim world, seeking diplomacy over militarism. It must do the same in Afghanistan instead of Afganizing Pakistan.
- Posted in
31 Comments so far
Show AllIf Obama does not see who the real enemy is soon, he will get the USA in more trouble than Bush did.
Maybe it is too much fun for him not to handle the truth.
Maybe it's too much fun to feel the power in destruction.
mr. president obomber is looking at "the real enamy" every morning when he looks in his mirror
This is so disturbing. I am having serious trouble understanding why this is permissable. We need to cry out world wide. We need to do this for every county and every people who are killed for no reason.
The Taliban are primarily Pashtun people who are the majority of Afghanistan's population and about 15% of Pakistsn's population. Most, if not all, Pakistani Pashtuns live on the northwest frontier (bordering Afghanistan). We can also thank General Zia, Pakistani dictator in the early '80's, for importing Wahabbism from Saudi Arabia, such an enlightened sect of Islam. While this will be devastating, it is good to see Pakistan on the offensive - this won't be easy and the costs will be high.
It's good to see which part of Pakistan on the offensive?
All Pakistanis have excellent advice for Obama:
1. Give us billions of dollars
2. Don't give us advice on how deal with the Taliban - they are 'our' people
3. If the Taliban use Pakistan as a safe haven for attacks on Afghanistan/Nato, that is just the way it is.
4. Also, give us some more billions.
Obama has only three options for the AfPak problem:
1. Withdraw from the region - let the Pakistani Army and the Afghan 'Army' fight it out with the Taliban by themselves. This will end in the creation of a Taliban Pashtunistan consisting of most of Afganistan and the Pakistan's North West. Pakistan will be reduced to Punjab and Sind.
2. Send in US forces into Pakistan to destroy the safe havens.
3. Force Pakistani Army to fight the Taliban in Pakistan.
Pakistanis imagine that they want the option #1, but actually #3 is the best that they can get.
I think #1 option is the best for everyone, except the Pakistanis.
Unfortunately you are right for the most part. I do believe that most Pakistanis hate being so completely joined-at-the-hip to the U.S. I think Pakistani people to begin with did not have a choice in anything as the Military/ISI/CIA have been determining their policy for them all these years.
Also most Pashtuns owe their allegiance to their tribes, first and foremost, and dont support the Taliban en masse. If Pakistan decides to engage and empower the Pashtun tribal leaders they stand a much better chance of overthrowing the rabid Taliban vermin. This fight has been coming for many years. The Pakistan military has been evading it all along as Musharraf the master conman has been deflecting Washingtons moves all along. I dont think Musharraf expected his frankensteins to come calling to Islamabad.
Either way Pakistan needs to make some really tough choices. In my radically different opinion, the best policy Pakistan can follow is to make complete peace with India and Afghanistan. This will make the extremist problem disappear in a very short time. These three countries working together WITHOUT american interference is the only way this problem can be solved. American/NATO troops need to withdraw immediately. Russia, Iran and China can help India, Pakistan and Afghanistan solve the problem. Its the only way out.
Why wouldn't it be best for the Pakistanis? Their government and the Taliban should make enough trouble without the American government bombing weddings and so forth.
Would you like to place a bet on what the US will do?
#2. Send in US troops to destroy the safe havens.
Except they'll destroy a lot more than that. The constant excuse will be keeping nukes out of terrorists hands. If it works, Obama will be assured re-election. If it drags out and helps drag down the US economy - or should I say Wall Street - then Obama might as well start using his initials now, BHO, because he'll end up like LBJ. Therefore, the Republicans should be looking for a new Nixon, not a new Reagan.
Pakisghanhalfassistan is the new nation just created by the always benign and infallible United States government and military . . . Brock Alabama, current CEO, COO, CFO of the Bust and the Brutest, LLC. If they were selling shares of this shit company on the NYSE, what would they be going for?
Rather than turning Afghanistan into a military dependency, we should partner with Afghans, on the local level, to build a sustainable economy.
One of the "turning" points in Iraq was the hand-over of power to the local chiefs (Anwar Province) who were able to bring the local war under control.
We've always had a partnership with the Kurds - very little problem in the north. They have severed most ties with Bagdhad and have a good deal of local autonomy.
The Afghans and the Pakistanis don't buy into the Bin Ladin "strategy". They know we are there for the control of three proposed pipelines that pass through Gwadar, the Chinese-built port on the Pakistani/Baluchistani coast.
Two of the three pipelines give substantial benefits to Iran, Pakistan, India and China. The one pipeline that favors US economic interests is the one that runs through Herat and Kandahar in Afghanistan and through Quetta, the Taliban capital, in Pakistan.
The whole war in Afghanistan is to control energy supplies for more than 50% of the world. We can"t let the Iran-Pakistan-India pipelie succeed. We can't let the Iran-Pakistan-China pipeline succeed. The gas potential of the South Pars field in Iran would be a major factor in the energy future of Pakistan, India and China - and by extention - Japan and Korea.
Without the US built pipeline, we cannot control the central Asian states and
their vast energy wealth. Our efforts to clear poppy fields (helmund Province) and to fight the Taliban - not Al Queda - are along the pipeline routes.
We really don't care if Northern Pakistan is peaceful, since that would help the Chinese pipeline. We will keep pressure on Iran to control the flow from the gas fields.
If we want to succeed in Pipelandistan (thank You Pepe Escobar), we need to find a way to develop pipeline communities.
Is there any legal use for poppy? Maybe Morphine based drugs? We chould buy the opium at market prices and enter into long term contracts with the villages.
Can we hire villagers to stabilize the pipeline route? Blackwater with an Islamic conciousness.
Alaska was developed in the seventies by the pipeline. Why can't we use the same ideas for Afghanistan?
We must stop buying the OBL crap from O'Bama, and ask him (and Hillary) to tell the truth.
They know Americans are geographically ignorant. They have controlled energy policy, including Pipelinestan, behind close doors for way to long. And the MSM - let them concentrate on Donald Frump and Miss Teen USA.
And if we can develop Afghanistan, we can develop any place in the world - as long as the people are behind us.
Partnership? What would that be? If US owns 50% of Afghanistan, that's not a partnership unless the Afghanis also own a share of the US.
The history of the partnership is interesting, too. If one courts a partner by murdering part of the population, driving whole districts from their homes, taking over the government, torturing the employees and so forth, what system can one create later to call partnership?
"If US owns 50% of Afghanistan, that's not a partnership unless the Afghanis also own a share of the US. "
LOL ! I totally agree with you. Lets see how that works out !!
but the US also wants a foothold in the rebuilding of Pakistan's southern port city, Gwadar. Control of Central Asia from the Arabian Sea....The "new Dubai"
in the meantime, Obama soothes your heart and mind with words of "diplomacy". But don't dream so quickly. The US interest in aiding extremists to fight the Soviets had nothing to do with the well being of the populace it used to do its work.
Just as before, the ultimate plot is the same. The primary US interest in Afghanistan and Pakistan (Pashtunistan) isn't about the people of the region.
I guess you are referring to these articles ... good points.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE09Df03.html
http://atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KE08Df02.html
More towards Robert Kaplan's "The Revenge of Geography" in the recent FP. While broad scoped referencing several of the "shatter zones" around the World, pg 4-6 are directed to the above points.
btw.Thanks for the link. Escobar's work was a great read.
Interesting seeing these central themes through the lens of different writers. More depth of subject at the very least.
Here's a link for Kaplan's piece:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4862
And why has the MSM ignored Gwadar and the proposed pipelines?
And the real geopolitics of the region?
Somebody is very afraid of the truth ...
Don't forget the pipeline(s), oil and gas are never far away from "strategic interests" of the Empire.
No Imperial force has ever subdued the Pashtun tribal regions successfully: Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, Persia, the British, The Soviets, Pakistan, nor any central govt. in Kabul. Believing that there is a military solution to the "tribal lawlessness" on either side of the border is pure folly.
As one comment above alluded to: if we invested some meaningful amounts of money in building civilian infrastructure (instead of destroying the country and making more enemies)in the region the peaceful dividends would be big. We have to remember that this is one of the poorest regions in the world. If people have nothing to lose and are backed into a corner, they will likely resort to violence. Simply labeling everyone who resists Taleban is not helping matters. Call them mujahadeen, lawless Pashtun tribesmen, or Taleban or whatever, there is a long long successful tradition of resisting foreign invaders
Congress refuses to question or limit O's Afghan policy.
The people of Swat are fleeing and finding no food or water. Where is the USA airlift of aid to compensate for the offensive in Swat?
And the Afghans and everyone else are still trying to figure why Papa Bush funded the extremists and only the extremists to fight the Soviets.
Yeah Glen,
We called them "freedom fighters" in those days, I even remember that. A billion dollars cash (in late 80s value) and all the Stinger missiles they could shoot.
US policy is now depressingly clear. I never believed that we meant to get Bin Laden at Tora Bora. Those days seem innocent in comparison to the horror that we have wrought since. Every day a new nighmare that won't end in my lifetime.
Were the Pakistanin government to succeed in crushing the Taliban, would that allow American might train train on Iran or return to Latin America?
The Pakistani government's willingness to kill Pakistanis instead of resisting American incursions is extreme, though not at all unprecedented. Certainly the prospects for anyone's success or failure here are worth analyzing, but no one need do so as though the intentions of the United States or the Pakistani government were neutral or benign to the people of Pakistan.
The best thing Obama can do is to split up Pakistan in to three stans. He could kill three birds with one stone. What he needs to do is to make NWP become part of Afghanistan, Punjab could become independent and Sindh could be forced to join India. The Kashmir problem would disappear all together as well.
The best thing O can do is split up the USA D.C. could become part of Hell,The East coast could be Bankster purgatory and the West could be Peoples Heaven
there is really no meaning to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. That part of the world is not either country. it is Pashtunistan, a nation of 40 million people.
The u.s. attack on Afghanistan was and is will always be a brutal, inexcusable war crime. more bombs, more drones, more white phosphorous- no matter what violence obomber brings to Central Asia, willjust kill a lot more people but will never accomplish any imaginable positive result.
The irony of empire is that all of the money spent on weaponry and the chaos that war creates will be the reason for our president to ask for more money to feed the chaos and destruction and put aside the welfare and human rights of our commonwealth and the world.
The Reagan administration supported the muhajadeen, who became the Taliban. The government killed and arrested many members of al qaida.
My question is how much punishment is enough punishment for the country of afghanistan. And why can't our representatives stop intervention if it always (if you study history) goes awry and leads to the killing of innocent people.
What a conundrum. What is the president worried about? a military take-over if he decides not to feed the beast? or Impeachment? What happened to his anti-war stance. Who and what does he represent. This president does not want any political battles at a time when his party holds the political high road. What a shame. I'm very disappointed.
One thing people need to realize is Afghans are people like us.
Why on earth would we listen to an educated, intelligent guy who was born and raised there instead of foreign policy intellectuals who know nothing of the people, politics and culture other than what they read, written by others like themselves?
After all, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Rice, Wolfowitz, Feith, Gates, Jones et al. have all the answers. If you doubt it, just ask them. Their actual records seem to be irrelevant.
"a deadly and costly mistake"
The US does this all the time. For whose benefit?
"President Barack Obama has been reaching out to the Muslim world, seeking diplomacy over militarism."
I see many more civilians being killed. More military and drone attacks on civilians. More civil war in Pakistan. Increased pressure from zionist zealots in the US and Israel to attack Iran.
As a professional window dresser and shop dummy for the US elite, Barack Obamas words as always are mainly for the US media, and so far not evidenced in any concrete implementation of policy. I agree the wars are not against the Muslim religion as such. It is just that most of the victims selected by the US for wholesale slaughter just happen to be Muslim.
Now the biggest change so far is the new army general to command the Baddy-stan war. The new replacement general is an alleged "super warrior" freak. Any changes would seem likely to entail an increase in aggressive military action, in an effort to achieve results where current strategy has failed. It will therefore produce more civilian casualties and continuing war crimes, when the most intelligent and humane action would be a total withdrawal. Show me a general who knows when to call an end to war. No, that call belongs to the Commander in Chief. So Mr Obama has decided to increase wars death and destruction, and no doubt hopes that this will result in victory and the high status of a decisive and powerful leader.
The results of these truely brutal military endeavours are only as good as the lowest common denominator or quality in the lower ranks of army personal, intelligence and organization. And also the general morale and and moral purpose of the soldiers. That is not going to improve anytime soon. The only change options will be more field testing of high tech military equipment, such as drones, to achieve better kill rates per dollar for the god almighty US Taxpayer. The war will now be an efficient and good war. The Apocalyptic American Technocrazies are preparing to strike again and again.
If Afghanistan is giving us so much hell with only 30 million people, imagine what Pakistan might do with 170 million people. borders between Pakistan and India are as open as between Afghanistan and India. India already has insurgencies in 40% of India. It cannot afford to have an Afghanized Pakistan on its border. Just multiply Numbai, Kashmir and Naxalites which are already found in 40% of India. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalite