Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Way Forward in Afghanistan
Legally and morally, we cannot shrug off the controversy over whether Canadians were complicit in the torture of Afghan detainees. Still, it's only one issue in the bigger Afghan quagmire.
Afghanistan cannot be pacified without Pakistan. But Pakistan won't fully cooperate unless its paranoia about India is addressed. But India won't be dictated to by Pakistan. Indeed, it has made big diplomatic and economic forays into Afghanistan, further feeding Pakistan's insecurities.
Yet NATO has had no policy to tackle this conundrum.
It had an Afghan policy (botched) but no policy on Pakistan beyond blaming it for providing "sanctuaries" for Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
George W. Bush's solution, in keeping with long-standing American practice, was to mollycoddle the local dictator (Gen. Pervez Musharraf). On a separate track, he befriended India as an emerging economic and global power, extending it nuclear and other strategic cooperation.
Canada does not even have an Afghan policy, beyond following Washington. That's in keeping with our historic practice of taking orders from the imperial power, Britain in the past, America in the present.
On Pakistan, we have no policy.
On India, we were asleep at the switch and only lately have been trying to catch up on business opportunities.
On the Afghan-Pakistan-India triangle, we have nothing to say. Perhaps we consider that to be way out of our league.
But Barack Obama does understand this equation and is only now beginning to address it after having made his own share of mistakes.
As presidential candidate, he proposed bombing the bejesus out of Pakistan. He was mocked. As president, he wanted Richard Holbrooke, his special envoy for the region, to address Indo-Pak issues, including Kashmir, the disputed border state. But India successfully lobbied against it. So Holbrooke got restricted to Af-Pak: Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In Afghanistan, Obama ordered the military surge (not so much to defeat the Taliban as to batter them enough to get them to sue for peace) but got entangled in an ill-judged public spat with Hamid Karzai. The Afghan president won that round and has just been wooed back (Washington having no other choice but to deal with him, warts and all).
In India, Obama has been quietly prodding New Delhi to open bilateral dialogue with Pakistan. In this, he is siding with Robert Gates, his defence secretary, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who see the Indian link as key to advancing American interests in Afghanistan. Prime Minster Manmohan Singh has responded, despite lingering anger in India over the 2008 Mumbai terror attack by Pakistani militants.
In Pakistan, Obama got the military to launch attacks on militants in the tribal regions along the Afghan border and also arrest some Taliban leaders. He intensified American drone attacks in the same areas. He has increased economic aid to Pakistan. Hillary Clinton has hailed the "dawn of a new day" between the U.S. and Pakistan.
But has all this come too late?
Pakistan has been sliding into chaos for too long to be pulled out quickly.
Jihadism was encouraged and paid for by the U.S. in the 1980s to roll back the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, using the Islamic mujahideen as proxies. In the 1990s, Pakistan created the Taliban as its proxy in Afghanistan. It created other militias as proxies in Kashmir against India. Since 2001, the Taliban and Al Qaeda have spawned offshoots in Pakistan. Now it's difficult to tell the difference between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan Taliban, or their affiliates.
Anti-Americanism runs rampant, which is why the drone attacks are not acknowledged. But being an open secret, the attacks are feeding even more militancy (Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square terrorist, is said to have been seeking revenge for civilian deaths from the drone attacks).
The U.S. wants the Pakistani army to continue its military offensive in the border region. But the army is stretched (having committed 240,000 troops and lost 800 last year alone) and the Pakistani public has other priorities.
The economy is in the doldrums. Power shortages are acute. Corruption is rampant (worse than in Afghanistan). Pakistanis see their government following an American agenda, which they do not regard as being in their interest. The U.S. recasts its request in terms of Pakistan needing to deal with its own internal jihadist cancer.
Too many problems have come to a head at the same time. Progress is needed on all fronts.
In this context, Stephen Harper's position that Canada will have little or nothing to do with Afghanistan after July next year makes no sense. This is not to make a case for continued military involvement but rather for us to think our way through to a peaceful political and development role, not just in Afghanistan but the entire region.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show All'Progress' and 'forward' are the problem not the answer. They are both escapes from disengagement, as in leaving and accepting the consequences of a big fat mistake.
It is not altogether surprising that a piece in an English language media outlet that realistically acknowledges the complexities of the situation elucidated is not based in the USA. One can reasonably argue that American naivete regarding the "outside" world, (along with Dubya, Cheney, & Co.'s half-baked Oil industry inspired agenda where the only thing that was carried with a hint of competence was the propaganda) got the USA enmeshed in this mess.
In earlier technological times, the smart move would have been for the various actors to have at it. Unfortunately, due to India and Pakistan both possessing nukes, the outside world will have to get involved. Seeing as how the USA is one stolen election away from a Tea Bagger redux of the Bush Error, a unified and coherent policy towards this ever mushrooming problem seems extremely remote.
Don't be fooled into thinking Canada's media is any better the the US's. The Star is the mouthpiece for the Liberal's our main opposition party. This is akin to Fox news praising everything Bush did and attacking everything Obama does, even though he is doing the same things as Bush. While the Liberals(who took into Afghanistan in the first place) were in power the Star had very little in terms of negative things to say about this illegal invasion and occupation
If there's one thing you can absolutely count on from the United States government, it is its unlimited supply of bone crushing stupidity and corruption. It will continue crushing not just our bones but those of everyone who comes into contact with it.
peacekeepertwo;The is an example of What happens when you have discuss your next move Wall Street. This is a Failure of our System. we can't stop spending money on War because Wall Street say Jobs at home will be Lost. President Obama must gamble on the change he promised.
The Chinese have already committed 50 billion for development of solar and wind technology's, once again, Wall Street and the US government have failed to bring innovation in America to the fore front.
Those are good manufacturing jobs for Americans, and it will make us less oil dependent.
But thats the problem, the oil company masters wont let our puppet elected officials lead America away from oil consumption.
One very misleading lie in the article is that the surge is needed to get the Taliban to sue for Peace.
The Taliban has been suing for Peace for about two years.
The Taliban leaders who were working for Peace were imprisoned in Pakistan, on who's request?
The only condition Mullah Omar makes is that the Peace negotiations in and of themselves will not lengthen the imperialist occupation.
Obomber is purposely preventing Peace
Glenn: Obomba is purposely preventing peace because like the good white house boy that he is; he is just doing what he has been told to do by his MIC masters.
Easy Paul,
The skull and bones crew did not threaten your family, yet.
Every powerful leader for the last three thousand years has had to contend with the posibility of assassination,
it is part of the Job of national leader.
Obomber and his family are no more valuable than an Afghan family.
Yeah Glenn, too bad Obomba does not have the bravery of MLK.
Khandahar is the next big test for Obama's Pentagon view of this "war of perception".
If it is a bloody like the rest, the perception is the same... nobody wins.
End the war and most everybody wins.
Khandahar could be a turning point.
We'll see.
"George W. Bush's solution, in keeping with long-standing American practice, was to mollycoddle the local dictator (Gen. Pervez Musharraf). On a separate track, he befriended India as an emerging economic and global power, extending it nuclear and other strategic cooperation."
The Bush Chenney crime family has no solutions, they want caos, thats how they make their money, fear,war,oil control.
And the death Benazir Bhutto, well , you know she would have ended all support with the USA military, she was not a puppet to the skull and bones crew.
What ever the greater good is, this path of insanity that 9/11 created, one thing is for sure, we have ten times more enemy's, because of the occupations and death and destruction to innocent people in the middle east, and so far , fascism , lower wages, loss of jobs, no new technology investments in solar and wind power are the net results.
We the people will be out of money, jobs and tax money as a result of the grand plan of the elite , the greater good, will make a America a poor country.
WAS THAT THE BUSH PLAN OF YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US.
Where Haroon Siddiqui ever got the idea that Obama has a clue about what to do is beyond me. He has made mistake after mistake. To say Naive is too kind.
"In this context, Stephen Harper's position that Canada will have little or nothing to do with Afghanistan after July next year makes no sense."
In any context it makes perfect sense. A year from now Mr. Obama has already declared we will begin pulling troops out. Maybe its a year or two later, what difference?
If I'm the opposition I've no where else to go, I'm home, but I know that you are going home. Now, next year, the year after or ten years from then, no matter, you are going home and I will still be here.
So why would any Canadian Prime Minister with a care for his young people keep them there knowing this? Why would a President for that matter?
As Glenn pointed out below, the Taliban have been willing to reach a peaceful settlement for over two years.
Jim Glover below puts it best...
"End the war and most everybody wins"
DUH !
The Canadian public is beginning to realize that their military is being used to further American corporate Big Oil imperialism with the goal of hegemony over Central Asian resources via Afghanistan.
Why sacrifice Canadian lives and money to subsidize American energy corporations ?
These energy schemes have been effectively purged from nearly all American media via corporate censorship and incompetent American journalists who march in lockstep with fascist corporate Amerika.
And another pathetic truth is that if the American war crimes in Afghanistan become successful, these energy resources will be marketed in Asia and have nothing to do with American domestic energy needs. But of course the American taxpayer foots the bill.
article:
Afghanistan and the new great game
Prized pipeline route could explain West's stubborn interest in poor, remote land
by John Foster
"Since the 1990s, Washington has promoted a natural gas pipeline south through Afghanistan. The route would pass through Kandahar province. In 2007, Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state, said: "One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan," and to link South and Central Asia "so that energy can flow to the south." Oil and gas have motivated U.S. involvement in the Middle East for decades. Unwittingly or willingly, Canadian forces are supporting American goals."
yet:
"Militarizing energy has a high price in dollars, lives and morality. There are long-term consequences for everyone. Canadian voters want to know: Why is Afghanistan so important?"
And when will the American public wake up ?
And it looks like the Dutch will be leaving Afghanistan.
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9432-news-dutch-prove-unwilling-to-sacrifice-more-lives-in-afghanistan-for-obama.html
"Dutch prove unwilling to sacrifice more lives in Afghanistan for Obama
Monday, 22 February 2010 03:54 Henry Adams
On Saturday, the Dutch Labor Party "pulled out of the government after an acrimonious 16-hour cabinet meeting that ran into the early hours" of the morning, bringing down the government," the New York Times reported.[1] -- The issue at hand: troops in Afghanistan. -- As a result, "it appeared almost certain that most of the 2,000 Dutch troops would be gone from Afghanistan by the end of the year,"
Heil Barack Obomber, the fascist puppet of Big Oil !
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KF04Df04.html
The shadow war in Balochistan
Pepe Escobar
With or without using Jundallah for its own Iran-destabilizing agenda, Washington's "other" war is about to hit Balochistan in Pakistan full speed ahead. By mid-summer, the US's Afghan surge in troops will be in position. A new American mega-base in Helmand province's "desert of death" will be operational. Assassination teams, drone attacks and Hellfire missiles will boil this tense tri-border area. Shadowplay rules. (Jun 3,'09)
By mid-summer, Obama's Afghan surge in troops will be in position. A new, US mega-base in the "desert of death" in Helmand province, in southern Afghanistan, will be operational. The base happens to be a stone's throw from the Iran-Afghan border, and just across the border from Pakistani Balochistan. It's the ideal, strategic base for an extended, tri-border (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan) General David Petraeus-coined counter-insurgency splash.
Ultra-shadowy task forces, "Hell from above" drone war, Hellfire missiles, the merciless logic of privatization and "covertization" of war, the Pentagon's "secret operational capabilities" to "locate, target and kill key individuals in extremist groups" - all this cannot but fester in this tri-border area.
And if you have an appetite for real journalism, try this:
The Best Of Pepe Escobar
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html
Permit me to summarize the problem: The U.S. would like countries in the region to do that which serves U.S. interests. Such a policy will fail in the long term.
"Foreward" in Afghanistan is across the border into Pakistan.
Forward in Afghanistan, is to end the occupation and to bring ALL the troops home. The Wests presence in Afghanistan is doing nothing but making the situation in the entire region including Pakistan ever mire unstable. But then that has been the plan from the start.
First you create the instability,then you use that instability to justify keeping your troops there until things stabilize. Of course since it is your presence there that is causing the instability in the first place, you end up with permanent bases and an eternal imperialistic occupation.
Yes, but you missed my sarcasm.