A war that never ends
N N Khattak

THE true mission of US-led Global War On Terror (GWOT) consistently advocated by the NATO/ISAF and their allies, has been to use military power to create the space within which Afghan institutions can become strong enough to resist the Taliban. The irony of the fact is that even after eighth years of warfare in Afghanistan, US Administration is not significantly closer to that essential aim. Christina Lamb, a well quoted authority on Afghan issue since 2 decades, offered a frontline analysis of why the US cannot beat the Taliban. She contends that US made the first mistake by abandoning Afghanistan after backing its mujaheddin to oust the Soviet Union. The US paid heavy price for it with 9/11 tragic incident. The same mistake was repeated in 2006 when US diverted its attention from war in Afghanistan to Iraqi expedition at a most decisive stage. The US neglect of Afghanistan has permitted the Taliban and other insurgents to regain and reorganize themselves to pose a formidable 9/11 type threat. Having failed to finish off al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Washington now finds itself fighting Qaeda-affiliated groups on multiple fronts. With each death in Afghanistan, it becomes more pronounced that this is a war that can't be won - an endless war. US General David Petraeus, head of Central Command, has warned that it will be the longest campaign of the long war. Despite of the warning by some of U.S. military strategists, Bush Administration continued to impose a military solution which like many modern-day conflicts cannot be settled through "military measures" alone. With no end in sight to the conflict, Western leaders now admit the war cannot be won militarily and that ultimately peace talks will have to be held to bring an end to fighting that has killed 4,000 people this year.
A high-profile US intelligence report recently concluded documents that Afghanistan is on a "downward spiral" due to rising violence, drug trafficking and pervasive institutional corruption. The United Nations envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, warned the Security Council that violence in Afghanistan has soar over the past years despite deployment of 53,000 strong US and NATO troops. Christina Lamb observed that violent incidents have gone up from 44 a month in 2003 to 573 this year, and more than 4,500 people have been killed this year. The Americans have lost more than 1030 troops in Afghanistan. Most alarming is that Kabul has been encircled by the Taliban from all sides. Almost all the highways leading towards the capital are considered unsafe for travelling. The Talibans have managed to create a power vacuum. The government no longer exists in much of the country. Taliban now has a strong presence in all seven of Logar's districts, and they openly rule in four of them, in neighboring Ghazni province. Taliban is in full control of 13 of its 18 districts. In Wardak, which neighbours Kabul, it controls of six of the eight districts. A recent report by one reputed think-tank said that Taliban has now permanent presence in more than half of Afghanistan. Many of 40 NATO countries contributing allied forces are now advocating talks with the Taliban. There is resentment that Germany, Italy and other countries refuse to do any fighting. NATO countries refused Gates's entreaties to commit more troops. They are reluctant to target even drug traffickers, arguing that this would further endanger their troops by opening up another front. The ISAF troops think that there is a need to change the approach in terms of pursuing the Taliban, suggesting that negotiations with the Taliban are the only hope of any kind of peaceful solution.
So what is to be done? Solution lies in creating the conditions whereby NATO and the US can adopt "face saving" regime without involving their ego. It will be more realistic option to: (1) Avoid the deployment of additional 30,000 NATOIUS combat troops, because more soldiers means more targets for the Taliban. As this is not a conventional war, therefore, the only ending is through negotiated and political settlements. (2) Respect the sovereignty of Pakistan by avoiding unilateral air strikes inside Pakistan. Although it important to destroy the "safe haven" across the border with drones, it's clear that the benefits of these tactics are heavily downplayed by the growing anti-American sentiment in the Pakistani public. Attacking Taliban remnants on the soil of a longtime US ally, is surely playing with fire. Pakistan is fighting the global war on terrorism not only in support of U.S. goals but also for Pakistan's national interest and is determined to clean-up its tribal areas before the trouble "spills over" into the settled areas. America's policy to target the Taliban has left several deleterious consequences. It has resulted in the creation of a "safe haven" for various terrorist elements in the FATA responsible to plan more catastrophic attacks on NATO/ISAF troops stationed in Afghanistan. It has also allowed a mushroom of violent extremist groups inside Pakistan resulting in the rise of new Islamist militant groups sympathetic to al-Qaeda. (3) Initiate some sort of negotiation or deal with the Taliban element. If President Bush can take North Korea off the terrorism list, then why cannot US Administration initiate an engagement process with Taliban?
The US and its alliance of warlords have not been able to build a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan after the passage of seven years. Pakistan has urged international community to begin instead a campaign of reconciliation with the Taliban focused on `winning (their) hearts and minds." As in all insurgency wars, winning the confidence and consent of the people of Afghanistan will always be more important than winning any particular tactical level military battle against the Taliban. The only real question now is whether it is too late to rectify the problem. As the conflict in Afghanistan is being escalating from all sides, the control of the terms of engagement in confronting Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency might not slip from America's fingers. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of British forces in Helmand, told that US should stop thinking in terms of defeat and victory. "We're not going to win this war; it's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army." In his view US should be concentrating on building up the Afghan army so it can defend itself - and trying to achieve a political settlement that might well involve giving some power to the Taliban.

Will more US troops help remove Afghanistan's woes?
Bassam Javed

IS the war in Afghanistan winnable? Is it right to assume that what Britishers could not achieve in Afghanistan in the nineteenth century and the Russians in the twentieth century, US will be able to achieve a victory there? At least, the US president elect is convinced that it is doable. His policy advisors are drafting a new strategy that promises to provide a way out for permanent peace and stability in Afghanistan so that the foreign soldiers could leave for their native countries with pride and grace. Experts believe that the awaited strategy would focus more on reconciliation efforts within Afghan polity that is basically tribal and warlord oriented.
When analyzed, the events in Afghanistan have been going very wrong especially since 2005 as the goals set for the war appear to get further away from the coalition's reach with each passing day. The Afghanis are showing signs of resentment with the performance of the foreign troops deployed in their country. They believe that the foreign troops have done nothing for ensuring lasting peace and stability, as mandated, despite eight years and as such have become part of the problem rather than the part of solution in Afghanistan. As the time passes by, Afghanistan continues to sink deeper in the prevalent narco-jihadi-tribal environment thereby subjecting the very fabric of Afghan society to bleed slowly. These narco jihadi-tribal elements continue to be funded through drug trade and manoeuvred by drug and war lords under the patronage of foreign embassies based in Kabul against provision of safety guarantees for their soldiers in their respective deployment areas.
Succumbing to the hype created by field commanders in Afghanistan for provision of more troops, US and some other coalition countries have agreed to reinforcements by spring time next year on the premise that the fresh troops would be deployed in support of British troops in Helmand and other parts of the southern region besides and for defending Kabul which has increasingly become a soft target for Taliban's operations. A per the reports, the existing strength of around 32000 US troops will be supplemented with 20000 more over the next few years. However, the dilemma with these reinforced troops would be to get themselves convinced of the very purpose of their deployment and ultimate mission in Afghanistan. They know one thing for sure that the original mission set for initial deployment of their forces in Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama bin Laden - who slipped away or was made to slip away to ensure long term presence in a region that is full of natural resources. Mr. Nathaniel Fick of New American Security Center, a think-tank organization based in Washington and a former marine officer has deliberated on the subject by saying that," We do not have a strategic plan for Afghanistan. We have an enormous amount of schizophrenia in our policy right now. The United States has no Afghan war plan against which to plot objectives and chart corresponding needs".
With the expenses of war touching a trillion dollars mark, world entering into recession with 2009 forecasted a tough year and the acknowledgement of the requirement to enter into talks with Taliban, the perceptions have also started to change. The perception that with the passage of time the long war in Afghanistan has now become less threatening to the West, the wider belief that there are less chances of recurrence of 9/11 type attack now that the Taliban capability have been disintegrated and keeping Osama bin Laden on the run, the soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan remain weary of their deployment in an aimless war. They think that the real need of the hour is to focus on development activities and construction of infrastructure in Afghanistan by commercial entities rather than increasing the number of armed troops in Afghanistan.
The changing perceptions on Afghanistan have thus forced the military commanders to deviate from their goal of setting up of a strong central government in Kabul with a large army. Now they are convinced that the Afghanis would be better off with setting up of provincial centres of power that will be allowed to rely on local militias rather than depending on the help from centre. General David Patreus the top NATO commander in Afghanistan who brought the insurgency in Iraq to its near extinction while being in command there, holds the similar views and is likely to recommend the same in his report to the new US administration. Some analysts have already expressed their reservations on provision of further troops as they fear that the same would be detrimental as it would have the potential to turn more Afghanis against them and the Western backed government in Kabul for it may loose elections the forthcoming elections. The present times offer opportunities to world leaders and military commanders to enter in to early negotiations with Taliban and show flexibility by offering them power sharing deals for return to peace and normalcy in Afghanistan. The US Defence Secretary Mr. Robert Gates, who would continue to hold the same portfolio in the new administration as well, has reiterated the new philosophy saying at a press conference that the only way out to win the war in Afghanistan was "through political means". There could not be a better acknowledgement of the reality on ground.

Time for all of Us to stand up against terror
Samar Fatany

I WAS overwhelmed with hope at the sight of thousands of people holding hands in Mumbai calling for better governance and leadership from their country’s politicians. In a peaceful demonstration called “Mumbai for Peace,” more than 200 groups, from nongovernmental organisations, the business community and student movements took to the streets to protest against the devastating attacks that have killed nearly 200 innocent people and injured hundreds more. Their message was, “We are united; we want peace, and nobody can create any wedge or difference to divide us. We are Indians first and last.”
I wish this message could be heard and echoed all over the world. The peace lovers of this world also should show solidarity and resilience to stand against those forces and movements that create conflicts and seek to manipulate the minds of the innocent to carry out terrorist acts for the selfish gains of others. We must all unite to confront this destructive political agenda of these forces of evil. The Saudi government and all Arab and Islamic organisations have condemned the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
The majority in the Arab and Islamic world has denounced the barbaric act and stressed the need to protect humanity and stop the vicious cycle of violence. In a strong statement condemning the attack, an official from Jama Masjid Trust, which manages mosques and a large cemetery in Mumbai, rejected the bodies of the nine attackers and said: “People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim.” The Muslim majorities agree that the perpetrators of this heinous crime should be brought to justice and receive the ultimate punishment.
In Saudi Arabia, an expert committee in the Council of Ministers is studying a draft law to punish those involved in terrorism and other criminal acts that threaten all nations’ security. The new law will deal with all organised crimes and activities related to terrorism, and those involved in such crimes will face maximum sentences of capital punishment. Interior Minister Prince Naif described the various crimes of bombing, kidnapping and terrorising people as crimes of “haraba,” a Quranic term defined as “sowing corruption and chaos on earth.” It is considered as the most grievous crimes and, according to the Shariah, the guilty should be executed. Other governmental agencies have already completed studies of anti-terror laws, state security crimes and organised crimes. The Saudi government has always called for confronting terrorism through international cooperation.
The Saudi cabinet, chaired by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, reiterated the urgency for establishing a counterterrorism centre in order to strengthen global efforts to combat terrorism. The king had proposed the counterterrorism centre at the international anti-terror conference in Riyadh three years ago. There is a need to reach a consensus on the global definition for terrorism. Experts must recognise the root causes of this global phenomenon. There should be unanimous condemnation of terrorism, ethnic cleansing and the instigation of wars that terrorise women and children and conflicts that lead to bloodshed. The centre should identify the different terrorist organisations and understand the motives behind the criminal acts perpetrated by these criminals.

—Khaleej Times