What's new

US “War on Terror” Destabilizing Afghanistan, Pakistan

EagleEyes

ADMINISTRATOR
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
16,774
Reaction score
25
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
US “War on Terror” Destabilizing Afghanistan, Pakistan

July 13, 2008

US policies since the Soviet-Afghan war and continuing through the “war on terror” are a destabilizing influence on Afghanistan and Pakistan…

Afghanistan - PakistanEarlier this year, Jane’s Information Group ranked Afghanistan as one of the world’s most unstable countries, following the Palestinian territories and Somalia. Last month, Foreign Policy magazine ranked Afghanistan at number eight on its failed states index.

Violence in Afghanistan has grown steadily over the years, so that it is now higher than an other time since the US war to overthrow the Taliban after the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The US alleged that Osama bin Laden was responsible for those attacks and demanded that the Taliban turn him over. The Taliban agreed to enter negotiations on the matter on the condition that they be shown the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks. The US refused to provide evidence and instead launched major military operations, using air power and Northern Alliance warlords as proxy forces to overthrow the regime.

The Pentagon issued a report to Congress last month that said, “The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and have coalesced into a resilient insurgency…. The Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008.” It noted “two distinct insurgencies”, the Taliban to the south and a “more complex, adaptive insurgency” by other militant groups in the east.

The report noted that the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the same kind of weapons the Pentagon has blamed for causing many of the casualties in Iraq, is now growing in Afghanistan.

Helmand province in southern Afghanistan is dominated by the Taliban and is responsible for more than half of the country’s opium production. The drugs trade is a major source of income for the Taliban, which had virtually eradicated the crop prior to the US war.

The drugs trade flourished during the Soviet-Afghan war and helped to finance the mujahedeen’s efforts to fight the Soviet occupation. The CIA, if not directly involved in trafficking, was at least complicit in turning a blind eye as Afghanistan grew to become the world’s leading producer of opium.

The Taliban, after its rise to power, tried to control the trade, imposing taxes and monopolizing areas where poppy cultivation was allowed to continue. As their control became more strict they eradicated most production, arguing that opium use was against Islamic law (while itself profiting from the trade). According to UN figures, the amount of land used for poppy cultivation plummeted from 82,000 hectares in 2000 to just 8,000 in 2001.

As a result of the US overthrow of the Taliban, poppy cultivation once again exploded: 74,000 hectares in 2002, 80,000 in 2003, 131,000 in 2004. Cultivation increased 17% in 2007 from the previous year, nearly doubling figures from 2005, and accounting for 92% of the world’s opium production.

The UN estimated that the Taliban earned $200-400 million last year through a tax on poppy farmers. The drugs trade itself was estimated to bring in about $4 billion to farmers and traffickers, half the national income of the country.

Although it has been estimated that 3 million Afghans had returned home from Pakistan, where millions of refugees fled to during the Soviet-Afghan war, there are still more than 2 million registered Afghan refugees in Pakistan.

The Soviet-Afghan war began in 1979 when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Six months prior to the invasion, the US began supporting the Afghan mujahedeen against the government of Afghanistan. According to President Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, the purpose of the decision to provide covert aid to Islamic extremists was to prompt a Soviet intervention and give the USSR its own “Vietnam” war.

Refugees are mostly in Pakistan’s northwestern frontier and tribal areas, where militant groups have increasingly gained control and use the territory to launch attacks against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Militant leaders now using Pakistan as a base to fight the foreign presence in Afghanistan include former US allies, such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was a key CIA asset during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Osama bin Laden began his al-Qaeda organization during that war to provide support to the mujahedeen. Prior to establishing al-Qaeda, he travelled to the region from Saudi Arabia to assist the mujahedeen effort, arriving in 1985 in Peshawar, where the CIA, acting through the ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) as its proxy, had based many of its own operations. It’s not clear whether bin Laden received any direct aid from the US, but al-Qaeda and bin Laden’s operations must certainly have been known to and looked upon with approval by the CIA.

According to the UN, Afghanistan has one of the world’s highest rates of infant and child mortality. One out of five children will not live past the age of five. Well over a third of Afghanistan’s children are malnourished. 40 percent are underweight, and more than half are stunted.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has increasingly come under criticism for being an ineffective leader who has been unable to stem the growing tide of insurgency and influence of the Taliban. Karzai in turn has lashed out at the US and NATO forces for causing high numbers of civilian casualties and for its detention policies which only serve to fuel resistance to his US-backed government.

In one example of excessive force only helping to fuel the insurgency, British forces have used the Hellfire AGM-114N thermobaric missile in Afghanistan, a weapon that creates a vacuum so powerful that it sucks the air out of human targets and crushes their bodies. The warhead is loaded with fluorinated aluminum powder that disperses and then ignites upon detonation, creating a massive secondary blast that creates pressure up to 430 pounds per square inch. Victims often die from asphyxiation prior to their organs being shredded.

The weapon is condemned by human rights groups. Human Rights Watch calls the weapons “particularly brutal” and indiscriminate. A British Ministry of Defense spokesman defended the use of the weapon, saying, “We no longer accept the term thermobaric as there is no internationally agreed definition. We call it an enhanced blast weapon.” According to the Sunday Times, “The weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law. Eventually, they decided to get round the ethical problems by redefining the weapons.”

The weapon’s manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, markets them as thermobaric, or vacuum bombs. US President George W. Bush has said, “There are going to be some awfully surprised terrorists when the thermobaric Hellfire comes knocking.”

Karzai has also suggested that one key to resolving the violence would be to close down militant bases of operations in Pakistan.

Many Taliban and al Qaeda militants fled across the border to Pakistan as a result of the US war in Afghanistan, where they found refuge in the northwestern tribal territories. But the growing presence of militant groups there has led to increased instability in Pakistan. While anti-US sentiment in the region resulted in initial sympathies for the militants, as the local population became increasingly terrorized by the groups and their stringent interpretations of Islamic law, this sympathy has largely turned into fear and enmity.

In April, Karzai narrowly missed being assassinated during “Mujahedeen Day” (celebrating the victory of the mujahedeen over the Soviet Union) military parade. According to the New York Times, “The ability of the attackers to get so close to Mr. Karzai, who escaped unhurt, suggested they had inside help.” The Taliban claimed responsibility. A Taliban spokeswoman said, “We cannot say Afghanistan is free. Afghanistan is still under the domination of infidels.”

Last month, Karzai’s government accused Pakistan intelligence of being behind the failed assassination plot, saying that authorities have evidence of direct involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.

Sayeed Ansari, spokesman for the Afghan intelligence service, said, “Based on the investigation of the case and documents we found, as well as confessions by suspects we arrested, they show that the real schemers and organizers of the terrorist attack is the intelligence organization of Pakistan, ISI, and its associates, which committed unforgivable crimes.”

The ISI has long been criticized for its close ties with many militant groups and terrorists. The agency served as the CIA’s intermediary in financing, arming, and training the mujahedeen during the Soviet-Afghan war. Following that, Pakistan became the Taliban’s biggest benefactor and was supported by the ISI. There have also been links between the intelligence agency and Kashmiri militants, and India has accused the ISI of involvement in terrorist attacks.

Following the attacks of 9/11, it was reported that the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, had been responsible for wiring $100,000 to hijacker Mohammed Atta in Florida. As a result of the allegation, Ahmed was quietly replaced. The 9/11 Commission, for its part, stated that the question of who financed the 9/11 operations was “of no practical significance”.

The charge of ISI involvement in the assassination attempt came just a week after Karzai had threatened to send Afghan forces into Pakistan to fight militant groups operating across the border and using the region as a base for attacks in Afghanistan, further escalating tensions in the region.

The regime of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf has been strongly supported by the US. After 9/11, Pakistan ostensibly agreed to end its support for the Taliban and join the US in its war on terrorism. He has been lauded as a key “ally” in the war on terrorism and his government provided with billions in financing and military equipment.

Musharraf, who came to power in in 1999 in a bloodless coup that overthrew now opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, was reelected last year in a controversial election. Most of the Parliament walked out to protest that the vote was even being held, since Musharraf was still head of the military. The Supreme Court was expected to decide that the election had been illegal since Musharraf had not resigned from his military post before the vote. To counter this threat to his authority, he implemented martial law and cracked down on his political opposition, dismissing members of the Supreme Court, arresting lawyers, and cracking down on the media.

Early this year, a new government was formed after elections that placed parties opposed to Musharraf and his policies in power. Public disapproval of Musharraf is enormous, but despite an earlier promise to step down if the public wished it, he has more recently declared that he will cling to power so long as he feels like it’s in Pakistan’s best interests for him to do so.

The new government has taken a different approach to dealing with the militant groups in its northwestern frontier territories, pointing out that it was the US’s “war on terrorism” itself that had led to the increasing power of militant groups, and opting to engage in dialogue with militant and local tribal leaders. The US heavily criticized this approach, blaming it for the increase in insurgent attacks in Afghanistan despite the fact that the trend had shown increasing attacks long before the new government even came to power and that attacks had always surged in the spring after the thaw in the mountains.

At the same time, the Pakistan government has shown a willingness to use force if necessary to prevent the militants from gaining more ground. The city of Peshawar came under threat of being taken over by militants. The government deployed the paramilitary Frontier Force to defend the city, destroying bases of Mangal Bagh, leader of a group known as Lashkar-i-Islam, the Army of Islam, which was alleged by one Pakistani government official to be a creation of the ISI.

As a result of the operations, Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, announced that he would suspend participation in peace talks with the government.

As with Afghanistan, the Pakistani government has criticized the US for its use of force, such as the recent killing of Pakistani troops. The US defended the action as an act of “self defense” despite the fact that in the airstrike occurred on Pakistani soil.

Last week, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party and widower of former Prime Minister and party leader Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated late last year, criticized the West’s role in bringing Pakistan to the state it is in today, saying, “We were exploited under (British) colonialism, manipulated as a tool of Cold War intrigue, made into surrogates for a war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.” After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, “Pakistan and the country we liberated were abandoned to the forces of extremism and fanaticism.”
 
Webmaster,
I was thinking why don't we offer Mr. Bush registration on our forum. This way he might get a chance to read some very useful information and perhaps make some changes to his policies which by the way are very urgently needed. What do you think?
 
Unfortunately, Washington wishes to obscure 'the elephant in the room' . . . it is the presence of US and NATO troops and their proxy Hamid Karzai that are the source of the attacks and instability in Afghanistan.

The Afghans have a proud history of resisting and repelling occupations . . . and they've been very successful at it. History and culture are not important factors for US foreign policy, but, a nation that chooses to operate on ignorance [alone] is bound to crash into the brick wall of reality . . .

What is, particularly, tragic is that Islamabad should be trying to aid this grotesque imperial charade in Kabul by attacking its own people and alienating tribal loyalties that have served the sovereign and security interests of the Pakistani state for so many years. The central cog of the mandate given to the civilian coalition government was to cease cooperating with the US-sponsored War On Terror . . . which, has been ignored.

Is it any wonder that the political system in Islamabad is discredited beyond the point of repair!?

And now we have the prospect of key figures within the government and military colluding with a possible attack inside the country !?

When, exactly, did treachery and treason become part of the status quo and the much-vaunted policy of 'Pakistan First' !???
 
Karzai's allegation and Afghanistan report card
BY NASIM ZEHRA (Vantage Point)

19 July 2008
On July 14, the besieged Afghan President said he had evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the suicide bombing attack on the Indian embassy that left 40 dead and the Taleban attack on an ISAF post which killed nine US soldiers.

Karzai called off scheduled Pakistan-Afghan bilateral talks. India too pulled out of a planned two-day Indo-Pak talks on intelligence sharing. But neither of the two countries have provided any evidence against Pakistan, which too is fighting militants on its soil and suffering regular military casualties.

The list of problems inside Afghanistan is long and increasing. Karzai's inability to move beyond Kabul is coupled with the absence of sufficient ISAF troops to deal with the security challenge. Some claim the presence of the troops is the root cause of the civil war. The financial support required for Afghanistan's reconstruction is not available. The corruption and the warlords rule the roost. The increased killing of civilians by ISAF air attacks helps to swell the ranks of the Taleban.

Admittedly, the situation in the tribal belt too is a contributing factor. It continues to serve as the staging and recruiting ground for elements mostly fighting foreign occupation. If it was the Soviets in the 80's, it has been the US and NATO forces currently. The kosher and publicly known CIA-led international help received by these groups has now been substituted by multiple clandestine sources of support. It perhaps includes some elements within Pakistan's security agencies which have habitually and ideologically found reason to help fight all foreign occupations in Afghanistan. Also in post 9/11 volatile and more recently hostile situation, they may well be looking for sympathy and support from trials and militants fearing the international failure in Afghanistan prompts foreign military action inside Pakistan's tribal areas and beyond.

For the US, the compulsion to win 'by any means' is linked to its failures in Iraq, its Israel-inspired paralysis on Palestine and its inability to apply 'smart power' in dealing with Iran. Close to the US elections, the Bush administration is heightening its pressure on Pakistan to 'do more' and even increasing missile attacks directly on Pakistani forces. The past pattern of seeking prior clearance from Pakistani counterparts has changed with the US president having allowed his forces to take unilateral action on 'actionable intelligence.' India too has its compulsions. Despite the continuing Pakistan-India bilateral dialogue, with key bilateral issues having remained unresolved, the adversary mindset persists. For the adversaries, Afghanistan has long remained the battleground for influence. Embassy burnings, first Pakistani and now the Indian, is symptomatic of this continuing battle.

In Pakistan, under General Pervez Musharraf, the post 9/11 ideological reorientation of the top leadership of the Army and intelligence agencies also led to a new strategic conclusion; that the defence of the country is a complex factor involving economy, diplomacy and alliances and much less the patronage of armed militias. That policy change was reflected by taking concrete steps to improve relations with India and Afghanistan. However beneath this obvious policy there is also a subtext to the Pakistan policy. Often this subtext has been conveyed, over the many interactions and fragmented phrases to the Americans. How would a collection of these fragmented phrases, with stated and implied accusations, read? Perhaps something along these lines:

"We have our own security concerns that we acutely worry about; your worries area about your homeland thousands of miles away yet we worry about the here and now , about what appears to be a pincer movement from our eastern and western borders where troubles never end; you are never satisfied with what we do, you demand more from us at the cost of the government alienating itself vis a vis its citizens and the armed forces thinning out over a treacherous terrain; you forbid us from dialogue where experience has shown us that force alone will spell disaster; you are simplistic in demanding that we deliver peace while you are not willing to take the minimum sufficient steps needed to establish control at the borders; you acknowledge that greater political representation including that of some sections of the Taleban is required for putting Afghanistan on the peace track; while your charge list against Pakistan increases, our security concerns are always dismissed and seldom addressed; we are unsure of your intentions towards Pakistan and you must know if you do not trust us we trust you even less; you expect us to use unadulterated force against our own people resulting in the fire of civil war engulfing us all across nationally; your policy prescription will comprehensively extend the zone of crisis and chaos from Iraq, Afghanistan to our own country. This is unacceptable. Much that we want to engage with the international community to wisely deal with fast spreading terrorism we cannot accept your demand that we follow a failed policy of application of force on the one hand and of assured disaster for our own country, on the other. Are you our friends or our foes?

Unless these questions are addressed, there can be no peace and progress in Afghanistan, no calm in Pakistan's tribal areas and no end to the bloody battles erupting in pockets throughout Pakistan, and the so-called US-led global war on terrorism will continue to foment more terrorism.


President Karzai's accusatory outburst provides no solution. Less so does his and Delhi's move to cancel planned dialogues with Pakistan.

Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based national security strategist
 
Karzai's allegation and Afghanistan report card
BY NASIM ZEHRA (Vantage Point)

19 July 2008
On July 14, the besieged Afghan President said he had evidence of Pakistan's involvement in the suicide bombing attack on the Indian embassy that left 40 dead and the Taleban attack on an ISAF post which killed nine US soldiers.

Karzai called off scheduled Pakistan-Afghan bilateral talks. India too pulled out of a planned two-day Indo-Pak talks on intelligence sharing. But neither of the two countries have provided any evidence against Pakistan, which too is fighting militants on its soil and suffering regular military casualties.

The list of problems inside Afghanistan is long and increasing. Karzai's inability to move beyond Kabul is coupled with the absence of sufficient ISAF troops to deal with the security challenge. Some claim the presence of the troops is the root cause of the civil war. The financial support required for Afghanistan's reconstruction is not available. The corruption and the warlords rule the roost. The increased killing of civilians by ISAF air attacks helps to swell the ranks of the Taleban.

Admittedly, the situation in the tribal belt too is a contributing factor. It continues to serve as the staging and recruiting ground for elements mostly fighting foreign occupation. If it was the Soviets in the 80's, it has been the US and NATO forces currently. The kosher and publicly known CIA-led international help received by these groups has now been substituted by multiple clandestine sources of support. It perhaps includes some elements within Pakistan's security agencies which have habitually and ideologically found reason to help fight all foreign occupations in Afghanistan. Also in post 9/11 volatile and more recently hostile situation, they may well be looking for sympathy and support from trials and militants fearing the international failure in Afghanistan prompts foreign military action inside Pakistan's tribal areas and beyond.

For the US, the compulsion to win 'by any means' is linked to its failures in Iraq, its Israel-inspired paralysis on Palestine and its inability to apply 'smart power' in dealing with Iran. Close to the US elections, the Bush administration is heightening its pressure on Pakistan to 'do more' and even increasing missile attacks directly on Pakistani forces. The past pattern of seeking prior clearance from Pakistani counterparts has changed with the US president having allowed his forces to take unilateral action on 'actionable intelligence.' India too has its compulsions. Despite the continuing Pakistan-India bilateral dialogue, with key bilateral issues having remained unresolved, the adversary mindset persists. For the adversaries, Afghanistan has long remained the battleground for influence. Embassy burnings, first Pakistani and now the Indian, is symptomatic of this continuing battle.

In Pakistan, under General Pervez Musharraf, the post 9/11 ideological reorientation of the top leadership of the Army and intelligence agencies also led to a new strategic conclusion; that the defence of the country is a complex factor involving economy, diplomacy and alliances and much less the patronage of armed militias. That policy change was reflected by taking concrete steps to improve relations with India and Afghanistan. However beneath this obvious policy there is also a subtext to the Pakistan policy. Often this subtext has been conveyed, over the many interactions and fragmented phrases to the Americans. How would a collection of these fragmented phrases, with stated and implied accusations, read? Perhaps something along these lines:

"We have our own security concerns that we acutely worry about; your worries area about your homeland thousands of miles away yet we worry about the here and now , about what appears to be a pincer movement from our eastern and western borders where troubles never end; you are never satisfied with what we do, you demand more from us at the cost of the government alienating itself vis a vis its citizens and the armed forces thinning out over a treacherous terrain; you forbid us from dialogue where experience has shown us that force alone will spell disaster; you are simplistic in demanding that we deliver peace while you are not willing to take the minimum sufficient steps needed to establish control at the borders; you acknowledge that greater political representation including that of some sections of the Taleban is required for putting Afghanistan on the peace track; while your charge list against Pakistan increases, our security concerns are always dismissed and seldom addressed; we are unsure of your intentions towards Pakistan and you must know if you do not trust us we trust you even less; you expect us to use unadulterated force against our own people resulting in the fire of civil war engulfing us all across nationally; your policy prescription will comprehensively extend the zone of crisis and chaos from Iraq, Afghanistan to our own country. This is unacceptable. Much that we want to engage with the international community to wisely deal with fast spreading terrorism we cannot accept your demand that we follow a failed policy of application of force on the one hand and of assured disaster for our own country, on the other. Are you our friends or our foes?

Unless these questions are addressed, there can be no peace and progress in Afghanistan, no calm in Pakistan's tribal areas and no end to the bloody battles erupting in pockets throughout Pakistan, and the so-called US-led global war on terrorism will continue to foment more terrorism.


President Karzai's accusatory outburst provides no solution. Less so does his and Delhi's move to cancel planned dialogues with Pakistan.

Nasim Zehra is an Islamabad-based national security strategist

A very nice analysis. This has to be cleared that this Non NATO ally is an ally at all or just mere words.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom