Will ending war in Afghanistan be ever possible?

Speaking in Kabul on 14th February at the 32nd anniversary of withdrawal of the Soviet Union troops from Afghanistan, President, Ashraf Ghani, made an important distinction. 

The civil war that devastated Afghanistan after the withdrawal was caused not by the departure of Soviet troops, but by the failure to formulate a viable plan for Afghanistan’s future. As the United States intends to pull outs its troops from the country, it should keep in mind that lesson.

After withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan in 1989, the Soviet Union continued to provide financial support to the communist-nationalist regime, led by President Mohammad Najibullah. But, lacking domestic legitimacy, Najibullah’s regime quickly collapsed when Soviet Union withdrew its financial support in 1992, triggering the civil war. In 1996, the Taliban gained control of Kabul and, ultimately, the country.

The Taliban remained in power until 2001, when a US-led invasion—spurred by the 9/11 terrorist attacks—ended its rule. In February 2020, US President Donald Trump’s administration reached a deal with the Taliban intended to end the nearly 20-year-long war. The US and its NATO allies agreed to withdraw all troops by May 2021 if the Taliban fulfilled certain commitments, including cutting ties with terrorist groups and reducing violence.

The Taliban also have to engage in meaningful negotiations with the Afghan government, which was not involved in the deal. The Trump administration apparently hoped that an intra-Afghan peace agreement would materialize by the designated withdrawal date, ending the fighting and minimizing the risk that Afghanistan would become a haven for terrorists.

That hasn’t happened; the number of US troops has been reduced to around 2,000 troops, fighting in Afghanistan hasn’t decreased. On the contrary, a US watchdog agency reports that the Taliban carried out more attacks in the last quarter of 2020 than during the same period in 2019. Moreover, the latest intra-Afghan talks, which began in Doha in September, have produced virtually no results.

It seems that the Taliban’s plan was to keep fighting until US troops left, at which point they might be able to secure a victory in the long war. Now they face another possibility that US troops won’t leave nearly as expected. President Joe Biden’s administration has announced that it is reviewing the deal to determine whether the Taliban is ‘living up to its commitments’.

The Biden administration also has to decide the role NATO allies, which together have substantially more troops in Afghanistan than the US does. Keeping in view the post-Soviet experience, the US has to devise a plan for influencing the situation in Afghanistan and the region after the withdrawal.

The challenge is formidable; Afghanistan is one of the world’s poorest countries. Afghanistan’s state income amounts to little more than a third of what the US pays to sustain its various security forces, to say nothing of US aid to the civilian sector (it amounts to less than half of Europe’s contributions). In fact, Afghanistan has remained depended on outside support to sustain its statehood since Russia and Britain played their ‘Great Game’ in the 19th century.

It seems that the US is leaning towards maintaining some sort of security presence, focused on fighting the terrorists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, beyond the May deadline, an approach German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has also advocated.

But there are risks. The Taliban could reject this solution, leading to an intensification of fighting and renewed attacks on international forces. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, is most likely already working to assess this risk.

The Taliban’s acceptance of a continued security presence may depend on progress in the intra-Afghan talks, though no one seems to have a clear vision for a power-sharing agreement. The gap between today’s Afghanistan and the Taliban’s desired Islamic Emirate is wide, and narrowing it will require a recalibration of the diplomatic process concerning Afghanistan.

The regional powers—including Iran, Russia and China—should be engaged in all talks about the country’s future, with one or two also taking a more active role in facilitating the intra-Afghan political dialogue. In this process, managing the dynamics between India and Pakistan, for which developments in Afghanistan hold profound national security implications will undoubtedly emerge as a key challenge. Indeed, at the moment Russia is taking the initiative in this regard.

The pressure in the US and elsewhere to end the ‘forever war’ in Afghanistan is understandable. But, as Ghani has warned, simply withdrawing international forces is unlikely to yield that result. To avoid a new spiral of violence, all stakeholders must first deliberate what may happen after the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

Can sustainable peace be established in Afghanistan?

Afghans are hopeful that a peace deal between the Taliban and the United States can bring them closer to the end of the country’s ongoing devastation for more than four decades. This protracted state of war has resulted in loss of countless lives, massive displacement of people, particularly women and children, and destruction of infrastructure systems in the country. Taking into account the price Afghans have paid and continue to pay, it seems they would eagerly welcome and accept any deal that can put an end to the ongoing war, but is that really the case and is it that simple too?

For many Afghans, peace is not simply the end of war between Taliban and the Afghan army, working in the shadow of US-led troops.

They want equal rights for all citizens as described in the constitution. They also want a governance system where institutions are capable of protecting their rights. While the broad contours of the US-Taliban deal suggests a phased withdrawal of US forces, they also want a commitment by Taliban to reject internal and external militant groups operating in their territory. Though, the negotiations have been going on for months, the details remain unknown.

Afghans want withdrawal of US troops to be complimented by efforts to address the concerns of women, children, minorities, internally displaced communities, and returnees. The agreement must also include provisions to ensure equal participation of all without discrimination based on ethnicity, gender, language, religion, political, economic and social affiliations.

Since direct talks between the US, led by Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, and Taliban started in late 2018, a number of experts and political analysts—many of whom are not Afghans—have said they believe Taliban have changed or reformed. They say Taliban leaders in Doha have assured them that they recognize that today’s Afghanistan is not the same as in the late 1990s when they ruled the country. However, in the eyes and experience of millions of Afghans, the Taliban’s ideology remains very much unchanged. Is there anything that can be done to bridge the confidence deficit?

After 18 years of fighting Taliban and US administration appears ready for troop withdrawal. Yet, even as the US negotiates with Taliban, the group continues to engage in terrorism and kill civilians indiscriminately. The question is whether Taliban—at both the leadership and operational levels—have the capacity, competency, and willingness to put the public good before the group’s interests. Even if the US-Taliban deal and an eventual peace agreement brokered by intra-Afghan talks results in Taliban joining the country’s political system, terrorism will remain a challenge for the country.

Countering terrorism requires more than a military response. It requires integrated political, social, and economic strategies. Ultimately, Afghanistan can only tackle its terrorism challenge when it has achieved political stability, social equity and economic growth, all of which are interconnected. There is concern that withdrawal could lead to a sudden stop of humanitarian and development aid, which would be catastrophic. As the US and international coalition troops drawdown, the international community must remain engaged to help Afghanistan build a more peaceful, inclusive society. That is the only way to reduce the high levels of violence the country has experienced for decades.

Is the international community, particularly the US, willing to stand by Afghans after the withdrawal of troops? Many Afghans fear that after the signing of a peace deal between the US and Taliban, the US will abandon the country, leading to chaos and civil war much like after the withdrawal of Soviet troops some 30 years ago. An abandoned Afghanistan could be exploited by violent extremist groups around the world and bring Afghanistan right back to where it was in 2001.

US troops to stay in Afghanistan forever

I started writing blogs under Geo politics in South Asia and MENA about five years back. The objective was to share my views with global readers, particularly the Think Tanks operating in the US. Most of the topics I picked up over the years were: 1) proxy wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, 2) imposition of economic sanctions on Iran for decades, 3) use of crude oil as weapon, 4) melodramas in the name of change of regime, 5) creations of phantoms like Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS and 6) dishonest western media.

The title of one of my second blog written in August 2012 was Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan? Despite having little knowledge about international relations or geopolitics at that time, my conclusion was that the US will never pull its troops out of Afghanistan. My conclusion was based on the fact that presence of the US troops in Afghanistan provides it a safe haven for undertaking cross border actions in Pakistan, Iran, China and some of the energy rich Central Asian countries.

I had deliberately avoided mentioning drug as one of the prime reasons for the US troops for occupying Afghanistan, but one of the readers of my blog was prompt in raising this point. If one thinks with a cool head this may be the key reason because it gives control on drug trade and also the money to be paid to militants for killing the innocents ruthlessly and to keep the world permanently under fear. It may also be said that Afghanistan has become a nursery for growing mercenaries and people from around the world get training in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan. They are also paid from the money earned from cultivation of poppy.

Having born and grown in war-ridden Afghanistan, the locals have become ‘blood thirsty’ and suffer from restlessness unless they kill a few people every day. Ironically they not only kill their own countrymen but also go to places where conflicts have been created by the super powers to satisfy their lust.

The conclusion of my today’s blog is that after fighting two world wars, super power have decided to fight proxy wars, sell arms to the governments where rebel groups have been created by them, use income from drugs and oil for buying arms. The job becomes easier through propagation of regime change mantra.

These super powers are among the sponsors of the UN, created for restoring peace in the world. However, now the only role of Security Council is to grant permission for attacking a country chosen for the proxy war. Two of the worst examples are Afghanistan and Iraq and many other countries are also the victim of super powers. Usually the military dictators are made head of state and often the drama of sham democracy is also staged.

Pakistan will not be a bed of roses for Hale

Pakistanis have always welcomed the US Ambassadors in Pakistan with the hope that relationship between the two countries will improve eventually. However, the experience has been contrary as the US mantra of ‘do more’ never ends. This often gives Pakistanis an impression that their country has become subservient to the sole surviving super power.
With the US focus shifting away from Arabian Peninsula to South China Sea, South Asia also seems to have lost its strategic importance. Fanning the differences between India and Pakistan, the two atomic powers of the region is playing with fire. The added problem is Afghanistan, where the governments failing in discharging their duties are prompt in blaming Pakistan.
The designate ambassador David Hale has spent some time in Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and at the US Mission to the United Nations, with multiple tours in Lebanon and Jordan. In Washington, he has also worked as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israel, Egypt and the Levant, Director for Israel and Palestinian Affairs, and Executive Assistant to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
Designate Ambassador replaces Richard Olson in Islamabad and will also have to work with him closely after his appointment as US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Olson assumes this responsibility at a time when the US and its Afghan allies face resurgent militancy in Afghanistan. Both the diplomats are expected to play a key role in the reconciliation process aimed at ending hostilities between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban.
One may recall that in the recent past Olson has talked about ending proxy wars. After the ISIS attack on France a question has become too loud, who supports this most brutal outfit? Naturally, fingers are being pointed at CIA and all those countries which are buying crude oil from ISIS. People also fail to understand why this phantom can’t be controlled if many of the super powers are busy in bombing ISIS hide out in Syria and Iraq.
It is also to remind the new Ambassador that in various regions CIA intervenes more in diplomatic issues. Olson’s predecessor Munter, who had been an advocate within the Obama administration for reconciliation with Pakistan, resigned in May 2012. People close to him have said he was frustrated that the CIA and Pentagon taking the lead on Pakistan policy.
Pakistan will not be a bed of roses for Hale as he has to face two of US historical rivals in Pakistan. Both China and Russia are making huge investments in Pakistan. Many Pakistanis have strong feeling that the US has never considered their country an economic partner but used their homeland and armed forces in a proxy war in Afghanistan.
I accept my inadequacy in understanding the US foreign policy but often I am forced to conclude that despite fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan, Pakistan had to hear ‘do more mantra’. Three of its immediate neighbors, India, Afghanistan and Iran are annoyed with Pakistan for towing the US foreign policy agenda blindly. Will the designate Ambassador be able to help Pakistan get its due place in the US foreign policy?

Pakistan: Can the rulers develop consensus?

According to the results of recently held elections all the political parties enjoy the status of ruling junta. If members of some of these parties will be sitting on opposition benches in the national assembly, they will form the government at provincial levels.

Interestingly, MQM that has remained part of ruling junta has decided to sit on opposition benches at the federal as well as provincial levels. Under the emerging set up it is expected that the parties will preferably come up with policies through consensus and avoid confrontation.

The real test of their consensus is deciding fate of the drone attacks. All the parties during their election campaign were critical of these attacks and now the time has come to tell the super power ‘enough is enough’. It is expected that prime minister in waiting, Mian Nawaz Sharif may not be able to convince the United States alone but if he enjoys support of all the elected members, he can negotiate a better deal.

In the worst scenario Pakistan has the right to intercept and down any aircraft breaching its airspace. 

However, it is believed that these attacks enjoy the blessing of Government of Pakistan (GoP), which is also extending ground support. It is often alleged that Pakistan provide the necessary details for these attacks because at times undertaking such precise attacks are not possible from ground.

The classification of Taliban into good and bad and Taliban/TTP extending support to JI, JUI-F, PML-N and PTI is not likely to allow the ruling junta to continue support for drone attacks. Many questions bother Pakistanis, what is the reality of Taliban/TTP? Are they friend or foe? If they are friend why are they at war with Pakistan Army?

One of the ways to rationalize good or bad Taliban is, those who cooperate with US-led Nato forces are called good and those who consider them ‘occupier’ have been clasified bad. Though, it has been decided to withdraw Nato forces from Afghanistan, there are fears that there will never be complete withdrawal. United States will retain bases in Afghanistan, party to keep Iran under pressure and partly to get control over the goods going to Central Asian countries via Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan United States is also supporting India in maintaining its hegemony; in fact the US wants the countries located in the region to accept India as a regional power. This is aimed at keeping Pakistan under pressure. In such a scenario Mian Sahib may find granting India MFN status a difficult task. His other associates, religious parties are also not likely to support him in developing too cordial relationships with India.

To overcome energy crisis Mian Sahib is demanding Rs500 billion, which has to be mobilized through imposing new taxes and/or raising rates of existing taxes. It is feared that he may also resort to hike in electricity and gas tariff, which will not be endorsed by his opponents.

Ironically, Mian Sahib has not come up with any policy to contain rampant pilferage of electricity and gas and recovery of outstanding dues. It is necessary to remind him that hike in tariffs just can’t improve cash flow of electric and gas utilities.

Targeted killing has once again resurfaced in Karachi and the worst victim is Shia community. Ironically, some of the religious parties and banned outfits enjoy most cordial relationship with PML-N. The time has come to catch the perpetrators and give them exemplary punishment.

US Hegemony in South Asia and MENA

According to media reports US ambassador-designate to Pakistan Richard Olson expressed that Islamabad has moved away from the old concept of finding strategic depth in Afghanistan and stressed encouragement for the positive development in the South Asian country’s strategic thinking.

Appearing in his confirmation hearing, Olson, who until recently served as a senior diplomat in Kabul, cited to Capitol Hill Pakistani actions as well as the avowed policy statements by its leaders to move away from the old thinking.

His apprehension may be right but he must also listen to others rather than basing his strategy on CIA-based information. Over the years CIA had been proved wrong repeatedly, may be because its designs conflicted with the policies of the democratically elected representatives of the largest democracy of the world. The CIA seems to be working on global agenda to make countries subservient to the US policies, including providing funds and arsenal to rebel groups around the world in the name of ‘regime change’.

For the information of designate ambassador there is a growing feeling that Pakistan has remained subservient to the US administration and never allowed to improve relationship with USSR, China and even India. At the best it may be said that Pakistan enjoys good relationship with China, only because it has been helping Pakistan in overcoming its economic problems. Pakistan was put against USSR in Afghanistan and India has been pampered and used against Pakistan and China.

Over the years Pakistanis have realized that their role has been reduced to ‘mercenaries’ killing Afghan and the US has been actively trying to create Indian hegemony in the region. This impression was further consolidated when the United States offered India ‘nuclear technology for civilian use’ but denied the same to Pakistan. Despite fully cognizant of the fact that Pakistan’s economic growth is constraint by energy shortage, the country is neither allowed buying oil, gas and electricity from Iran nor given money to construct hydel projects.

On the question of doctrine that Pakistanis over the years have talked about strategic depth and, one of the ideas that Afghanistan represents strategic depth against a potential conflict with India Olson said “My sense is that the Pakistani military and Pakistani government has moved away from that.”

The reason is obvious because President Obama visited India and termed it ‘strategic economic partner’ but keeps on saying ‘Pakistan should do more’ and at times voices were raised to stop assistance for Pakistan and declare it a ‘terrorist country’. The United States has created Taliban, a new breed of mercenaries to fight against USSR and if it can’t put the genie back in bottle Pakistan should not be blames.

There is also a growing realization in Pakistan that if USSR assault on Afghanistan was an attempt to get access to ‘warm waters’, the US occupation of Afghanistan is for getting control on production and supply of drug. Those Taliban who don’t support cultivation of poppy are termed ‘bad’ and those who have agreed to become partner in trade ‘good’. One of the reasons for stopping Nato supplies was aimed at stopping supply of chemicals under the disguise of goods of strategic importance for the combat soldiers.

The operation by Pakistan army is northern areas is aimed at weeding out infiltrators mostly coming from Afghanistan. Balochistan has also become centre of covert operation of foreign intelligence agencies against Iran. The much talked about Baloch uprising is to facilitate an independent Balochistan, comprising of three slices on each from Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan and creating a hostile country against Iran, which has survived more than 32 years of economic sanction and refused to bow down before the US hegemony in the region.