Pak US relationship a saga of ‘Marriage of Convenience’

Soon after the results started pouring in following the February 08 general elections in Pakistan, several members of the US Congress, as well as the US State Department, expressed concern over alleged interference in the polls, with the former even calling on President Joe Biden not to recognize the incoming government until a transparent investigation into the allegations. I invite the readers to read a blog posted as back as on May 03, 2022.

In today’s blog I am daring to negate an impression created by an article written by Ms Maleeha Lodi (Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, United Kingdom and United Nations) and published in Pakistan’s leading English newspaper. I am taking an extreme position by saying, “Pakistan’s foreign policy has always remained subservient to the US mantra”.

Please allow me to begin with the U2 incident, when the US pilot-less planes used to takeoff from a Pakistani airbase near Peshawar for spying USSR. At one point the situation got so nasty that USSR threatened to attack Pakistan.

Badaber: A secret US intelligence facility in Pakistan

In July 1958, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower requested permission from the Pakistani Prime Minister Feroze Khan Noon for the United States to establish a secret intelligence facility in Pakistan and for the U-2 spy plane to fly from Pakistan. The U-2 flew at altitudes that could not be reached by Soviet fighter jets of the era; it was believed to be beyond the reach of Soviet missiles as well. A facility established in Badaber (Peshawar Air Station), 10 miles (16 km) from Peshawar, was a cover for a major communications intercept operation run by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). Badaber was an excellent location because of its proximity to Soviet central Asia. This enabled the monitoring of missile test sites, key infrastructure and communications. The U-2 "spy-in-the-sky" was allowed to use the Pakistan Air Force section of Peshawar Airport to gain vital photo intelligence in an era before satellite observation.

I would also invite the readers to recall last-minute cancellation of the visit of Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan to USSR and going to the United States around the same dates.

This also reminds me the US ditching Pakistan at the time of creation of Bangladesh. State-owned Pakistani media kept on telling the US feet could arrive any minute, which never arrived. This creates an impression that the US supported creation of Bangladesh.

Now coming to Afghan proxy war, Pakistan played two opposite roles: first it supported Taliban in averting USSR attack in a quest to reach warm water and then supporting US/Nato troops in crushing the same Taliban.

Please also allow me to share conspiracy theory, “Pakistan and United States have enjoyed cordial relationships due military rule”. The readers are invited to read details of Ayub, Zia and Musharraf eras.

I am also inclined to share another public opinion, The US-Pakistan relationship is a saga of ‘Marriage of Convenience’.

It is often said, ‘Pakistan is a frontline allay of United States in war against terrorism’. Some analysts interpret it ‘Pakistan is partner in proxy wars but when it comes to Investment and trade India is the US darling’.

I tend to subscribe to this theory based on my follow up of the construction of Chabahar Port in Iran. Despite economic sanctions on Iran, India invested millions of dollars in the construction of this port and allied road and rail links to connect with Afghanistan and Central Asian states. Please also note that Pakistan was not allowed to import oil from Iran during this period.

The United States was more than smart in facilitating India in the construction of Chabahar Port and allied infrastructure. The prime US motive was to create an alternative access to land-locked Afghanistan, extended to Central Asian states.

But the real objective was to undermine Pakistan’s importance in Afghan transit trade. There is no denying to the fact that Pakistan still offers cost effective and shortest route to Afghanistan.

Before I conclude let me say, “Pakistan under the influence of the United States has not recognized Taliban Government in Afghanistan”. While Afghans are facing shortage of food and medicines, the two countries are not allowed to trade in local currencies; the United States has not released foreign exchange reserves of Afghanistan.

 

Democracy in Pakistan on Rough Terrain

Pakistan has survived many odds but the recent phenomenon of growing extremism, sectarian killing, elimination of political opponents and even the killing of doctors and academicians seems part of the grand agenda to plunge the country deep into anarchy. If the road to democracy leads from here, then it is quite a rough terrain.

Among the South Asian countries, Pakistan has the second largest population after India. Both the countries got independence from the British Raj with a difference of one day in August 1947. While India has earned the distinction of becoming a secular state and one of the largest democracies of the world, Pakistan has spent most of its time under autocratic rule, both military and civilian.

The younger generation often wants to know the reasons for the continuity of democratic rule in India and Pakistan staying under military rule for a very long time.

They also wish to understand the logic behind the ‘Charter of Democracy’ (CoD) that was signed between two of Pakistan’s largest political parties, PPP and PML-N.

There exist two opposite opinions about the CoD: first, it is an understanding reached between two political parties to avoid yet another military rule. Second, under the prevailing geo-political situation, the superpowers wish to keep the reins in the hands of elected representatives rather than supporting any military rule.

Some cynics say that political parties have learnt a lesson from the assassination of three elected Prime Ministers i.e. Liaquat Ali Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto.

They also believe that PPP and PML-N now regret lack of understanding among themselves which led to dismissal of the governments of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. Nawaz Sharif has earned the distinction of being elected prime minister for the third time after the assassination of the charismatic leader, Benazir Bhutto.

Analysts watching geopolitics stringently believe that superpowers install and topple regimes around the world to pursue their foreign policy agenda and Pakistan is no exception.

The most talked about personalities are Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Benigno Aquino of the Philippines, Saddam Hussain of Iraq and General Zia ul Haq of Pakistan. All these political leaders were assassinated once the missions assigned to them were accomplished.

To this list, names of Indra Gandhi, prime minister of India and two Prime Ministers of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujeeb ur Rehman and Zia ur Rehman could also be added. Sri Lanka has also been a victim of this tyranny.

While it is almost impossible to analyze Pakistan’s history spread over more than seven decades, one point is very clear – that the three military rulers were installed by the superpowers to maintain their hegemony in the region.

The rule of General Mohammad Ayub Khan (1958 to 1969) was facilitated because of the cold war. At that time Pakistan was made part of the South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), US-led defense pacts against communism.

After the fall of Dacca, Pakistan had no option but to pull itself out of SEATO during the regime of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and CENTO died its natural death in 1979.

At one time, the USSR was highly annoyed and wanted to attack Pakistan because US spy planes were using an airbase located near Peshawar to snoop over the Soviet Union.

The second military regime of Zia ul Haq (1977 to 1988) was support by the US in the name of averting a Soviet attack on Afghanistan, termed an attempt by the USSR to get access to warm waters. The Afghan war, spread over nearly a decade, was fought from Pakistan’s GHQ and religious parties were given money to prepare the breed of Mujahedeen, now often referred to as the Taliban.

Once the decision was made to pull out the US-led troops in the belief that the USSR had been defeated, the entire military junta of the time became redundant. Zia ul Haq and his close generals died when their plane was blown up.

The killers were so desperate that one of the youngest and most outstanding ambassadors of the US and a Brigadier General also died as they were travelling with Zia ul Haq and other generals on the plane.

It is often said that General Pervez Musharraf took over after a failed attempt of the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif to get rid of him by not allowing his plane to land in Pakistan. But some cynics say Nawaz Sharif provided an opportunity to the military to topple his government.

The superpowers may not have liked Pervez Musharraf initially but he became their darling after he decided to become a partner in the US war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

Pervez Musharraf got ‘red carpet’ receptions in the US and other western capitals for being their frontline partner in ‘war against terrorism’. He was kept in power till the decision was made to withdraw the majority of NATO troops from Afghanistan by 2014.

To give legitimacy to his rule, general elections were held in Pakistan. His exit from power looked a little strange to those who are not familiar with ‘conspiracy theories’. Some critics say he had also become redundant like Zia ul Haq.

The formation of an elected government under Pervez Musharraf was a replica of the elected government led by Mohammad Khan Junejo, which was termed a ‘legitimization of the Zia regime’ but an unceremonious dismissal of the Junejo government opened the Pandora’s Box.

Pakistan’s joining hands with the US during the Zia era to repel the USSR and fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan gave various ‘gifts’ to the country. These included – religious extremism, drugs and arms.

The presently prevailing precarious law and order situation in Pakistan can be termed as a combination of these stated elements. The democracy as prevalent today is also a hostage of these elements.

Some political analysts say that during the latter part of his regime and prior to the general elections, Pervez Musharraf was advised by the superpowers to join hands with Benazir Bhutto to ensure continuity of democratic rule in the country as this could also prolong his rule.

Prior to her landing in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto was told to join hands with Pervez Musharraf. But serious differences emerged between Benazir Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf. She was later assassinated and her widower Asif Ali Zardari replaced Pervez Musharraf as the President of Pakistan.

It looked like a reenactment of the assassination of Benigno Aquino in the Philippines and his widow Cory Aquino becoming president of the country.
Though, the inference is highly sordid but the fact is that politicians in Pakistan know it very well that if they wish to come to power, they have to pursue the agenda of superpowers.

It is often an elected or autocratic government but it remains in power due to the external support that includes financial assistance from multilateral donors like IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank or arms supplied in the name of ‘maintaining minimum deterrence level’ against Pakistan’s enemies.

 

US defeat in Afghanistan

As the last men of the dwindling American garrison in Afghanistan pack their bags, there is an echo of the Soviet Union's own withdrawal from the country, more than 30 years ago. But, in truth, Washington's defeat is far greater.

In December 1979, Soviet forces invaded Afghanistan to support the unpopular government of the ruling People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA). They soon found themselves bogged down in a war against Mujahedeen.

Nine years later, the Soviets decided that there had been enough bloodshed and, in May 1988, they began their exit. The final contingent of Soviet troops drove back across the bridge to the USSR in February the following year.

Twelve years later, US troops arrived to fight Taliban. Soldiers of other NATO states then followed. Together, they stayed even longer than the Soviets, but are now on the way out. US President Joe Biden has promised that American soldiers will leave Afghanistan by the end of August.

As the US completes its retreat from its longest war, its enemy is on the march. Lately, Taliban have captured 12 of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals, including the second and third largest cities in the country, Kandahar and Herat, both of which fell on Thursday.

The pace of Taliban advance has been remarkable. In some places, government forces simply ran away without a fight. The Governor of Ghazni province was said to have surrendered his city in exchange for free passage out of the area. US-trained government troops have fled or deserted en masse and, in some cases, gone over to Taliban. It’s fair to say that it’s been a rout, and the Americans haven’t even fully left yet. The government may be able to hold onto the country’s capital Kabul, but even that is no longer certain.

In short, the 20 years of America’s and NATO’s war in Afghanistan has ended in ignominious failure – total and absolute. So, of course, did the Soviets’ war, but not quite so abruptly.

After the last Soviet troops crossed over the Friendship Bridge linking Afghanistan and Soviet Uzbekistan, Mujahideen launched a major offensive, confident that they would be able to defeat the government forces in short order. Their offensive collapsed completely. The Afghan army stood its ground and not a single major population center fell into the hands of their opponents. It was not until two years later, when the post-Soviet Russian government of Boris Yeltsin cut off funding to the Afghans that the PDPA regime finally fell.

The contrast with what has happened this past week could not be clearer. Even after the Soviets had left, the troops they had trained and equipped fought hard and successfully. Today, the troops that America and its allies trained and equipped at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars have scattered to the four winds with only the slightest effort at resistance.

But, to be fair, the problem lies not in army exercises or crates of machine guns. The current batch of Afghans has had plenty of both. They outnumber Taliban and are better supplied. The problem is one of morale: not many of them are willing to die for their government.

The PDPA had a well-deserved reputation for corruption, incompetence, factional in-fighting, and dogmatic, counterproductive policies that alienated the Afghan people, such as its Marxist assaults on religion and private enterprise. Mujahideen, the Taliban’s precursor, enjoyed substantial support from the United States, including signing for the delivery of sophisticated Stinger missiles.

The fact that the Soviet-backed government put up a better fight than its contemporary counterpart can, therefore, only have one explanation, Afghans respect their current rulers even less than they respected the socialist PDPA. And that is really saying something.

All of which begs the questions of why America and NATO spent so long supporting the regime in Kabul, and why the latter got to be so disliked.

The answer to the first question is largely one of prestige. Having installed the current government, Western states felt that their reputation was tied to its survival and thus refused to abandon it even when it became clear that it wasn’t worth supporting.

The answer to the second question is that the awfulness of the current government owes a lot to the policies pursued by Western states.

After Najibullah was overthrown in 1992, Afghanistan suffered a vicious civil war in which drug-running warlords competed for power and inflicted all sorts of atrocities on the Afghan people. When Taliban came along offering fierce but incorruptible justice, many Afghans breathed a sigh of relief and gave them their support.

Canadian General Rick Hiller famously said that Taliban were “detestable murderers and scumbags.” What he failed to note was that Taliban enemies were, on occasion, even worse. When America and its allies moved into Afghanistan, these enemies returned to their homes, this time with the backing of Western powers, and resumed their criminal ways. Unsurprisingly, the locals weren’t too impressed.

Beyond that, Western powers flooded the country with money. Pour cash into an impoverished country without adequate controls, and the consequence will be mass corruption. So it was in Afghanistan.

Not only did this delegitimize the government, but much of the aid flowed down into the hands of Taliban. As John Sopko, the US official responsible for auditing American expenditures in Afghanistan put it, “the end of the US supply chain in Afghanistan is Taliban.” If you want to know who armed and paid for Taliban, the answer is that America did.

Exit of US troops from Bagram: Symbolic and strategic victory for Taliban

“The closure of Bagram Airbase is a major symbolic and strategic victory for Taliban,” said Bill Roggio, senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

 “If Taliban is able to take control of the base, it will serve as anti-US propaganda fodder for years to come,” said Roggio who is also editor of the foundation’s Long War Journal.

It would also be a military windfall.

The departure of US troops is rife with symbolism. Not least, it’s the second time that an invader of Afghanistan has come and gone through Bagram.

The Soviet Union built the airfield in the 1950s. When it invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to back a communist government, it turned it into its main base from which it would defend its occupation of the country. For 10 years, the Soviets fought the US-backed mujahedeen, dubbed freedom fighters by President Ronald Reagan, who saw them as a front-line force in one of the last Cold War battles.

The Soviet Union negotiated its withdrawal in 1989. Three years later, the pro-Moscow government collapsed, and the mujahedeen took power, only to turn their weapons on each other and kill thousands of civilians. That turmoil brought to power the Taliban who overran Kabul in 1996.

When the US and NATO captured Bagram in 2001, they found it in ruins, a collection of crumbling buildings, gouged by rockets and shells, most of its perimeter fence wrecked. It had been abandoned after being battered in the battles between the Taliban and rival mujahedeen warlords fleeing to their northern enclaves.

After dislodging the Taliban from Kabul, the US-led coalition began working with their warlord allies to rebuild Bagram, first with temporary structures that then turned permanent. Its growth was explosive, eventually swallowing up roughly 30 square miles.

For nearly 20 years, Bagram Airfield was the heart of military power of United States in Afghanistan, a sprawling mini-city behind fences and blast walls just an hour’s drive north of Kabul. Initially, it was a symbol of the US drive to avenge the 9/11 attacks, then of its struggle for a way through the ensuing war with the Taliban.

In just a matter of days, the last US soldiers will depart Bagram. They are leaving what probably everyone connected to the base, whether American or Afghan, considers a mixed legacy.

“Bagram grew into such a massive military installation that, as with few other bases in Afghanistan and even Iraq, it came to symbolize and epitomize the phrase ‘mission creep’,” said Andrew Watkins, Afghanistan senior analyst for the Brussels-based International Crisis Group.

US Central Command said last week that it’s well past 50% done packing up Bagram, and the rest is going fast. US officials have said the entire pullout of the troops will most likely be completely finished by 4th July 2021. The Afghan military will then take over Bagram as part of its continuing fight against the Taliban — and against what many in the country fear will be a new eruption of chaos.

The enormous base has two runways. The most recent, at 12,000 feet long, was built in 2006 at a cost of $96 million. There are 110 revetments, which are basically parking spots for aircraft, protected by blast walls. GlobalSecurity, a security think tank, says Bagram includes three large hangars, a control tower and numerous support buildings. The base has a 50-bed hospital with a trauma bay, three operating theaters and a modern dental clinic. There are also fitness centers and fast food restaurants. Another section houses a prison, notorious and feared among Afghans.

Jonathan Schroden, of the US-based research and analysis organization CNA, estimates that well over 100,000 people spent significant time at Bagram over the past two decades. “Bagram formed a foundation for the wartime experience of a large fraction of US military members and contractors who served in Afghanistan,” said Schroden, director of CNA’s Center for Stability and Development.

For Afghans in Bagram district, a region of more than 100 villages supported by orchards and farming fields, the base has been a major supplier of employment. The US withdrawal affects nearly every household, said Darwaish Raufi, District Governor.

The Americans have been giving the Afghan military some weaponry and other material. Anything that they are not taking, they are either destroying or selling to scrap dealers around Bagram. US officials say they must ensure nothing usable can ever fall into Taliban hands.

Last week, the U.S. Central Command said it had junked 14,790 pieces of equipment and sent 763 C-17 aircraft loaded with material out of Afghanistan. Bagram villagers say they hear explosions from inside the base, apparently the Americans destroying buildings and material.

 “There’s something sadly symbolic about how the US has gone about leaving Bagram. The decision to take so much away and destroy so much of what is left speaks to the US urgency to get out quickly,” said Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the US-based Wilson Center.

“It’s not the kindest parting gift for Afghans, including those taking over the base,” he said.

Inevitably, comparisons to the former Soviet Union have arisen.

Retired Afghan Gen. Saifullah Safi, who worked alongside US forces at Bagram, said the Soviets left all their equipment when they withdrew. They “didn’t take much with them, just the vehicles they needed to transport their soldiers back to Russia,” he said.

The prison in the base was handed over to the Afghans in 2012, and they will continue to operate it. In the early years of the war, for many Afghans, Bagram became synonymous with fear, next only to Guantanamo Bay. Parents would threaten their crying children with the prison.

In the early years of the invasion, Afghans often disappeared for months without any reports of their whereabouts until the International Red Committee of the Red Cross located them in Bagram. Some returned home with tales of torture.

“When someone mentions even the word Bagram I hear the screams of pain from the prison,” said Zabihullah, who spent six years in Bagram, accused of belonging to the faction of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a warlord designated a terrorist by the US. At the time of his arrest it was an offense to belong to Hekmatyar’s party.

Zabihullah, who goes by one name, was released in 2020, four years after President Ashraf Ghani signed a peace deal with Hekmatyar.

Roggio says the status of the prison is a “major concern,” noting that many of its prisoners are known Taliban leaders or members of militant groups, including al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. It’s believed about 7,000 prisoners are still in the prison.

“If the base falls and the prison is overrun, these detainees can bolster the ranks of these terror groups,” Roggio said.

Pakistan should review its relationship with the US

Lately I have read a few interesting but contradictory news about the US policy towards Pakistan. It is not only a mockery of diplomatic relationship, but also shows the complete disarray in the US administration. According to one of the news, the US Military Chief, General Joseph Dunford Said that no victory in Afghanistan was possible without Pakistan’s support. As against this, the US Defence Secretary, James Mattis said  that the recent decision to stop reimbursements to the Pakistani military was not a tougher new policy for Pakistan but did reflect ground realities. He went on to say that the President Trump’s administration was reviewing its policies for the entire South Asian region and not just Afghanistan.

This takes me back into the history as back as 2012 when the then US Secretary of Defence, Leon Panetta had said, “In order to really have a secure Afghanistan, ultimately Pakistan is going to have to take responsibility for taking on these terrorists and eliminating the safe havens”. He also said that the US presence in Afghanistan would continue  beyond 2014 if more of the safe havens were not dealt with more stridently than they’ve been to date.

Over the years I have been saying that the US troops will never be pulled out of Afghanistan. My point of view has been recently substantiated by General Dunford as he warned against placing the artificial timeline on operations in Afghanistan. He went to the extent of saying that additional forces for Afganistan security forces would make them more competitive.

This is not something new; over the years the US has been saying that restoring peace in Afghanistan depends on the commitment of Pakistan to fight the terrorist. Instead of stopping incursions from Afghanistan, Pakistan is often accused of providing safe sanctuaries to those who are fighting with the occupying forces.

May be the time has come to find explanations for some basic questions:

1)       Why Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR as well as the US?

2)       Why US wishes to keep its forces there?

3)       Why should Pakistan fight a proxy war of the US?

There is growing realization in Pakistan that if the USSR had attacked Afghanistan for a passage to warm waters, the US is not serious in bringing peace to Afghanistan but achieve other motives. There are suspicions that troops are being kept there for two reasons 1) to protect the opium growers and refining laboratories and 2) a built up troops for immediate attack in case US arrive at the conclusion that appropriate time has come to attack Iran.

It may not be wrong to say that soon after getting independence from the British Raj in 1947, Pakistan became subservient to the US foreign policy, dominated by ‘cold war’. Despite putting its existence at stake, it followed the US dictate of taking anti USSR and anti China stance. However, when the US wanted to make China friend, Pakistan secretly took Henry Kissinger, the then Secretary of Sate, to Beijing. Since the late seventies, Pakistan has been fighting US Proxy war in Afghanistan. Therefore the time has come for Pakistan to decide if it wishes to remain part of the US proxy war or protect its sovereignty.

Is Pakistan inching towards isolation?

On June 19, 2016, I posted a blog titled "Need to revisit Pakistan's foreign policy". My concluding remarks were, “It is feared that tweaked foreign policy is pushing Pakistan towards isolation. It may be true that Pakistan enjoys geopolitically important position but it has not been able to take advantage of its location. 

Pakistan needs a vibrant foreign policy and a young and more articulated full-time Foreign Minister. The current advisors are part of past legacies and also see the world with tinted glasses”.

Many of my critics termed this a sweeping statement as they still insist that getting the funds from IMF and other multilateral donors is an evidence of the commitment of these institutions towards Pakistan. This support would not have been there had the lenders didn’t have confidence in the ruling junta and economic potential of the country.

My immediate and most candid reply is, “These institutions are there to bail out countries which even face more precarious economic outlook as lending is their business. These institutions never allow any country to commit default. They lend only that much which is enough for the survival of the borrowing countries but the policies are never aimed at making these countries financially strong.

Since the readers are not ready to spend more than a few minutes, I have the following brief assertions to make in support of my apprehension that Pakistan is inching towards isolation. I also believe that many readers may not agree with my inferences but I am sure it can start a healthy debate and let those at the helm of affairs to revisit the policy and come up with a more articulated one.

1-     Since independence Pakistan’s foreign policy has remained under the foreign policy of the United States. As a result Pakistan never enjoyed cordial relations with the then USSR and Russia of today.

2-     Over the last four decades Pakistan has been fighting a ‘Proxy War’ in Afghanistan. This can be divided into two phases. In the first phase Pakistan along with Taliban fought a war with USSR that was termed Jihad. In the second phase, starting in 2001, Pakistan has been fighting a war with Taliban, a friend turned foe.

3-     Pakistan has earned hate from various Afghans groups, Taliban as well as Northern Alliance. This paved way for India to enter Afghanistan as a facilitator. The recent alliance of Afghanistan with Iran and India is not liked by the hawks present in Pakistan.

4-     Since independence in 1947 Kashmir has remained the biggest thorn in normalizing relationship between Pakistan and India. They have fought three wars and both the countries have attained the status of atomic powers. Every year both the countries spent billions of dollars on the purchase of lethal armaments, only to attain supremacy on each other.

5-     After the Islamic revolution in Iran Pakistan’s relationship with the country went into the shadow of foreign policies of United States and Saudi Arabia. Despite the lifting of sanction imposed on Iran, Pakistan has not been able to trade with Iran. It has not even succeeded in establishing banking links, a prerequisite for normalizing international trade between the two countries.

6-     China is often termed time test friend of Pakistan and has been supporting the country in overcoming its economic problems, the latest being CPEC. However, many groups having vested interest are trying to sabotage the project.

These are just a few bullet points that need an open debate in the National Assembly and Senate of Pakistan. Ironically, the absence of independent ‘Think Tanks’ in the country is a serious problem. It is believed that over 3,000 Think Tanks are operating in the United States, but not even one is operating in Pakistan.

Will US pull troops out of Afghanistan?

A question is often asked by the citizens of countries directly or indirectly affected by the Proxy War in Afghanistan; will United States pull out its troops occupying the country after 2014? 

The overwhelming perception is, it will not. To understand this it is necessary to explore reasons why the country is being occupied under the disguise of Nato and ISEAF.

One point is very clear that the objective was not to liberate Afghanistan from the control of USSR or Taliban but to occupy it for economical and political reasons. Presence of Al-Qaeda was not an excuse for attack. Iraq was also not attacked because of Al-Qaeda but oil. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq had attack the world trade center.

One could find two possible reasons for occupying Afghanistan; valuable metals and geopolitics. Studies conducted by USSR showed that trillions of dollars worth precious and rare metals are present in Afghanistan.

Being the super power United States maintains its military dominance by brining countries all around the world under its hegemony to combat enemies. Afghanistan has an important place in the US foreign policy due to common borders with Pakistan, Iran, China and many oil and gas rich Central Asian countries.

After the Islamic Revolution Iran is being projected the biggest threat for the world, especially Arab monarchies and more recently for its nuclear program denouncing US hegemony. United States is planning for the ultimate day when troops will be deployed in Iran to takeover its nuclear assets. It needs an outpost near Iran and Afghanistan is the ideal country.  The two countries share a long mountainous border, which is virtually impossible fully monitor and defend.  

China is the second most powerful superpower, which is likely to surpass the gross domestic product of the United States by 2020 and become world’s strongest economic superpower.  United States already has outposts in Taiwan and South Korea, Afghanistan gives them a third root of attack should it be necessary.

Afghanistan was a hostage of the Cold War. The United States supported Pakistan and the USSR patronized Afghanistan and India against Pakistan. After Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 the Soviet leadership anticipated that in order to compensate its defeat in Iran the United States might seek to expand its influence in Afghanistan.

The USSR believed that getting control over Afghanistan could give it a perfect foot hold in South Asia and the Middle East. It would have access to a new ocean and proximity to the vast oil riches of the Middle East. There are no warm water ports in Afghanistan, but getting control over the Khyber Pass, an ancient trade route to China on the East and one step closer to Iran and Turkey on the West and Pakistan on the South, all with warm water ports.

With the disintegration of USSR, despite having tons of lethal arsenals and China focusing on its economy, the sole surviving super power seems too ambitious in establishing its hegemony in South Asia and MENA and Afghanistan appears to be the most ideal outpost. Therefore, probability of end to the US occupation of Afghanistan is hoping against the hopes. 

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.

Syria ‑ The Bitter Truth

According to an editorial published in Pakistan’s The Financial Daily, “Reports about Syria by the Western media were often said to be tinted but little was there to refute. One of the allegations is that they are not reporting what’s happening in Syria correctly because at times propaganda prevails over truth and disclosures are incomplete.”

It has also pointed, “Syrians are struggling to prevent Western conquest, exploitation, and control. They’re fighting for their lives to stay free. Followers of this policy say the issue isn’t whether Assad’s government enjoy public support or not but its sovereign independence has made it vulnerable.”

Even bigger accusations have been leveled by the Syrian authorities. They have accused regional powerhouses Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey of trying to destroy the country and vowed Sunday that they would defeat rebels who have captured large swathes of the commercial hub Aleppo.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, on a visit to Iran, leveled some rare public criticism of Sunni powers in the Middle East, saying Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are supporting a plot hatched by Israel to destroy Syria. "Israel is the mastermind of all in this crisis," Moallem told a joint news conference in Tehran with his Iranian counterpart Ali Akbar Salehi.

Syrian opposition had appealed on Sunday its foreign allies to provide with heavy weapons to fight President Bashar al-Assad's killing machine and said it would soon start talks on forming a transitional government to replace him.

"The rebels are fighting with primitive weapons. We want weapons that we can stop tanks and planes with. This is what we want," Abdelbasset Sida, head of the Syrian National Council (SNC) opposition alliance, told a news conference.

However, criticism about the SNC's legitimacy is likely to complicate its efforts to form a transitional government. It backs the Free Syrian Army rebel force, despite having not always overtly supported it in the past.

Last week, Brigadier General Manaf Tlas, one of the highest ranking defectors to flee Syria, said he would try to help unite Syria's fragmented opposition inside and outside the country in order to agree a roadmap for a power transfer.

Reportedly al Queada has joined and supporting the rebels. A question is being raised is this the same as the US supporting the Taliban when USSR attacked Afghanistan but turning hostile once the motive was achieved.

Observers say Syria was calm and peaceful until Washington imposed violence, mass killing and destruction. They say Syrian conflict isn’t an uprising, revolution or civil war but Western media orchestrated by Washington is distorting the reality.

The Financial Daily has rightly concluded, “Insurgents are fully supported by Washington proxies. Subjugating is termed liberating the oppressed. In fact they are aiming at assault if other methods fail. Opponents of Assad are being provided funds and arsenal to initiate a full scale war. This is exactly what they did in Libya.”

Colonialism proliferating, though in a different form

It may not be wrong to say that the World War-III started no sooner did World War-II ended. Under the new arrangement countries are not conquered using military but by subjugating their sovereignty.

In the past the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund used to take control of policy making of recipient countries but now power of these countries to make decision are curtailed by establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).

After the World War-II, super powers namely USA, USSR, and later on China have emerged. While USSR faced disintegration after its failed attempt to get access to warm waters by attacking Afghanistan, China preferred to focus on becoming an economic power. The USA got a free hand to establish its hegemony.

China is a perfect example of ‘If you can’t kill your enemy, make him friend but never forget you have to kill him one day’. USA has emerged a major investor in China and also a major buyer of made in China products. The policy is driven by the lust to control Chinese economy.

Economic sanctions are imposed on countries trying to the US policy but all the decisions are driven by protecting its own interest and/or its peripheries. This is evident from the latest US decision to exempt India, Malaysia, South Korea, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Taiwan buying oil from Iran. These countries are either the major buyers of made in USA arsenal or supplier of goods and services to the super power.

United Nations (UN) has also become subservient as most of the decisions are made by the permanent members enjoying veto powers. Any decision by the international community can be turned down by these countries.  However, if a rubber stamp is needed, UN endorses military action, the most recent examples being Libya and Syria. Iran has been facing economic sanctions for more than three decades.

Different blocs have been created for the collective exploitation and now to establish US hegemony and developing regional powers. India has been given the status of regional super power. Commonwealth keeps on reminding the sovereign countries that they were British colonies and are still under the thumb of Monarchy.

Economic assault has been initiated under the WTO that gives legal cover to the financial atrocities of the developed countries. These countries control economies of poor sates through multinational companies (MNCs). This is best understood when one looks at the balance sheets and profit and loss statements of Fortune-500, which has further reduced to Fortune-50 companies,

But armies still play key role in conquering countries, with US leading Nato member counties. Usually the campaign starts in the name of restoration of democracy. Regime Change Plans are executed by funding rebels and proving them arsenal. This is in no way any attempt to make their lives better but to keep the armament factories running at full capacities.