The Devil in Indo-US Afghan Policy
Posted on 14. Apr, 2010 by Jeff in Letters to Editor
By Dr. Haider Mehdi
Obama and Karzai inspecting Guard of Honour
The ancient French/German wisdom in political negotiations proclaims that: “The devil is in the details.” A very true, extremely accurate proclamation. Pakistan found out “the devil in the details” in the Kerry-Lugar Bill and the US-brokered National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). It has discovered “the devil in the details” in its IMF negotiations and its loans conditionalities, and it will most certainly learn the same lesson when the euphoria over the recently concluded “strategic dialogue” with the US diminishes to the realization of its fundamental realities. Some ancient wisdom, such as “the devil is in the details” is reliable for all times. We will discuss this in the context of Indo-US Afghan policy; but first, let me construct a rational bridge linked to the development of consistency in political thought and logical argumentation, by observable phenomenon.
Years ago, in a casual conversation, a friend, a powerful industrialist and an aspiring politician, said the following: “Every person has a price; every one of us can be bought if the bidding is right – and political executions are as much a historical reality as the sun rising every day… how else can we explain powerful leaders and nations committing mass executions of less powerful nations and people… these mass executions are given the name of legitimate wars… wars are the fancy name for diplomacy by brute force…”
Decades ago down memory-lane, I heard the same phenomenon repeated in the epic film “The Godfather”. Michael Corleone, the head of a mafia “family” says to Tom Hagen, the Consigliore: “If anything in life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it’s that you can kill anyone.” Later in the film, Michael sarcastically asks a US SeNATOr to name his price. In another intense moment, Michael tells Moe Greene, his casino partner in Las Vegas, that he wants “buy him out.” Moe Green replies aggressively “No, I buy you out, you don’t buy me out.” Greene’s refusal to “sell himself” results in his execution-style assassination with a bullet straight to his brain through his left eye. (And of course with the Corleone family taking full possession of the casino.)
Many films of our times are the true reflections of the contemporary political culture and its insidious consciousness that has emerged out of the technological civilization and which promotes worldwide socio-political-economic management and the advancement of the multi-national corporate capitalist culture.
A careful review of Obama’s latest Afghan foreign policy doctrine will clearly indicate an intrinsic link to Michael Corleone’s perspective on human history and its fundamental operative dimensions. Obama’s administration has been consistently demanding that the Afghan President work out a split within the ranks of the “Taliban resistance forces” by “buying them out” and simultaneously has unleashed the surge of military force against them. At the same time the US has been asking Pakistan to “do more” for the American interests. Added to the American arsenal of “military force” and “buy out” is the US alliance with India – a strategic and a tactical formula that holistically combines Michael Corleone’s “working methods” into a manifested dogmatic foreign policy doctrine.
Obama, in his recent secretive visit to Afghanistan, has once again asked Hamid Karzai to shelve his plans for peaceful reconciliation efforts with the Taliban.
The Economist recently opined: “Now Karzai seems in demand again. Obama met him at his palace in Kabul, and shared a dinner with his Cabinet. He invited Karzai to the White House in May, as part of the Americans’ efforts to bully and cajole him into playing his part in their high-risk counterinsurgency plan… America also wants to see the Afghan government push plans to win over “low-level” Taliban fighters, deemed susceptible to job creation …and… Some diplomats have also detected a coolness in Obama towards a planned ‘consultative peace jirga,’ essentially a large meeting, to be held in May, of national representatives. The hope is that they will come up with an agreed approach to peace talks with the Taliban”
India, the US alliance partner, is fully entrenched in Afghanistan on similar fundamentals and in for an even larger piece of action in the American-NATO’s long range geo-political objectives in South Asia, Central Asia and the planned future “containment” of China. In the process, Pakistan’s geographical integrity and national sovereignty are deliberately threatened by “the devil in the details” of this Indo-US undertaking.
India, with America’s blessing, has “spies… diplomats…a base of operations to train guerrillas to attack Pakistan… and is arming and training terrorists at war against Pakistan”, wrote Gordon Duff in Opinion Maker recently. Indeed, Indian political-military activities in Afghanistan without the US approval and backing cannot take place or even be imagined as India’s sole political enterprise.
Indeed, India’s legitimate commercial and political interests in Afghanistan cannot be disputed; that is not the issue. The problem lies elsewhere: Fundamentally, the close Indian political-military alliance with the US directly threatens the possibility of an immediate political settlement in Afghanistan and long-lasting peace and political stability in this entire region.
First, peace cannot and will not come to Afghanistan on American terms only. To think in this way is purely a US-NATO political-military illusion. General Aslam Beg, in his recent article “Churchill’s Choice for Afghanistan” published in Opinion Maker has correctly pointed out that the contemporary “Afghan Taliban” are the young generation of the last 30 years who have grown up in a war-ravaged country and want their homeland freed from foreign occupation. US-NATO can have a war going on for another hundred years and even then they will not win.
Second, there is an overall change in political mood in Afghanistan. Even some American commanders are saying that ultimate success will hinge on winning local sympathies. For example, Maj. Gen. Mayville, deputy chief of staff for international forces, said recently: “You’ve got to have the community really wanting in, otherwise things are stalled.”
Third, Hamid Karzai himself is in a defiant state of mind against American demands and dictates. A newspaper reported
Karzai talking to Gen McCrystal
that Karzai told a gathering in Kandahar that “There will be no military operation without your cooperation,” while Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, looked on.
Fourth, it is yet another political illusion in the minds of Indo-US alliance “pundits” that Pakistan will simply “wither away” or “disintegrate” under the political-military-destabilization strategy and “terrorist” campaigns. The revolutionary reawakening of Pakistan’s civil society (vis-à-vis its political elite and external actors) and the patriotic nationalist public sentiment is quietly giving birth to a new political renaissance in the country. Pakistan will certainly rise as a more powerful, stable, prosperous and mature nation. It is only a matter of time before its reactionary, right-wing and exclusively America-centric political leadership will face its demise by the dictates of historical synthesis.
Fifth, by all accounts and estimations, Manmohan Singh is a fair man. But the Indian Prime Minister’s trouble is that he is presiding over a political establishment and a nation which, by emotional-psychological default, has prematurely indulged itself in the inaccurate political self-perception of a “great power.” Consequently, the Indian leadership and urban population feel that India has been bestowed with the responsibility of a “Manifest Destiny” to regulate and manage regional and global politics – indeed, in a political alliance with the US.
Admittedly, India’s massive population and its vast market potentials cannot be ignored as important factors to lift it to global importance and to political commercial eminence, both for the Western and Eastern blocs, including China. But by the same token, going by international poverty indicators, India today is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Sooner or later, its present “global-political-military” romance with the US will be politically confronted from within by its own massively deprived masses.
As for India’s role in Afghanistan, it is an expensive political enterprise and a dangerous military engagement (vis-à-vis Pakistan) that India cannot sustain for very long! Poverty at home should be India’s foremost priority.
Each and every war has made America rich! But for India and its masses, another war will eventually cause the bells to toll in its disunity and disintegration as a nation!
The fact of the matter is that poverty cannot sustain the high stakes of power, prestige and global political eminence! The price is too high!
The devil is in the details!
Dr Haider Mehdi, a PhD is a regular contributor to Opinion Maker.
loading...
7 Responses to “The Devil in Indo-US Afghan Policy”
Leave a Reply
Donations
Join Us
 |
| Subscribe to Opinion Maker |
| Email: |
neel123
15. Apr, 2010
“Fundamentally, the close Indian political-military alliance with the US directly threatens the possibility of an immediate political settlement in Afghanistan and long-lasting peace and political stability in this entire region.”
- On the other hand, India sidelined and marginalized will perfectly suit Pakistan. But that is a Pakistani point of view. India is too large and important to be ignored at the cost of a semi-failed Pakistan.
“peace cannot and will not come to Afghanistan on American terms only.”
- It is natural that the most powerful will have its way, and not a moth-eaten Pakistan that survives on American tax-payers’ charity.
- Indians do not need the title of “Great Power”, the world however has recognized another China coming up in next few decades.
“As for India?s role in Afghanistan, it is an expensive political enterprise and a dangerous military engagement (vis-?-vis Pakistan) that India cannot sustain for very long !”
- that is no business of any Pakistani to judge. India does not survive on American aid.
“Each and every war has made America rich! But for India and its masses, another war will eventually cause the bells to toll in its disunity and disintegration as a nation !”
- Only in Pakistan, can a Pakistani in denial get a PhD , based on a thesis full of wishful dreams …. !
sylvia t villalobos
15. Apr, 2010
The United States failed to significantly weaken the ?AfghanTaliban? either directly or indirectly, an expansion of the groups? geographical reach, and an evolution of its organizational structure. Main reason was US over dependency on its military force and the perception that there was a battlefield solution to a ?war? on terror. But military force has rarely been effective against terrorist groups in the past. a ?kitchen-sink? approach does not guarantee a predetermined amount of resources and effective result. Nor does it provide an appraisal of what is most likely to be effective (and what is
not). Or applying the approach of ?tailored containment?, enforcing economic and political sanctions are rarely effective. Also the use of Military force in combat operations in Afghanistan, where its presence only increased ?Afghan Taliban ?recruitment. Afghan Taliban is known outside the Muslim world as ?terrorists? but at the home front they are called ?freedom fighters?. This change might seem pedantic but have significant symbolic importance among the Muslim of South Asia . Moving away from military references would indicate that there was no battlefield solution to countering terrorism. The concept of a war on terrorism,? suggests to Muslims community that the United States is fighting a war on Islam. And the reaction has to be jihad, or holy war. War convinces people to do jihad.
US are confronting in Afghanistan a broad network. To effectively target this network requires a painstaking process of collecting intelligence on Afghan Taliban penetrating cells, and eventually arresting or killing its key members but unlike a hierarchical organization that can be eliminated through decapitation of its leadership, Afghan Taliban resists fragmentation because of its dense interconnectivity.
Whereas several terrorist groups in the past have ended because of a political solution, Afghan Taliban broad goals make this unlikely. Since its goal remains the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, there is little reason to expect
that a negotiated settlement with the US governments is possible.
The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally cease being drawn to measures that requires taking calculated actions that alienate Muslims. In this regard US had adapted a ?the devil in the details? scheme:
?this requires establishment of [a] relationship with every significant
mullah in the country. . . . We should put our weight behind
the nationalist ones and not allow the militant or fanatic ones to
take over. This is only possible if we keep the nationalist ones on
our pay-rolls. Amrullah Saleh, Strategy of Insurgents and Terrorists in Afghanistan, Kabul: National
Directorate for Security, 2006, p. 16.
To counter terrorist ideology then, the U.S. military or other international actors are desperate to identify and ?buy out? who holds power, whom the local population trusts, and where locals get their information?and then to target these forums. In a number of cases, such as in Afghanistan and Pakistan?s tribal areas, religious leaders and tribal elders wield most of the power. Thereby providing assistance to credible indigenous groups, such as Muslim clerics or tribal elders that can effectively counter jihadist propaganda. These groups do not essentially have to be supportive of the United States, but they do need to oppose insurgents and have credible influence among the population. Much of this funding may have to be indirect and covert to protect their credibility. But such schemes rarely prosper and had been ineffective because the mullahs are not gullible .According to Professor Stephen Holmes of NYU ? They believe that your enemy is deceiving you, and you have to pretend to agree, but secretly you follow your own views .? and in Plato?s word ?they only tell noble lies? . For US then, public deception is absolutely necessary evil.
As to India presumption that Pakistan will wither away or disintegrate is a hoax, Firstly, Pakistan had perfected its Nuclear Weapon delivery system and Pakistan has historically had greater success enriching uranium rather than extracting plutonium, it has maintained a duel track approach, attempting to master both processes in order to give itself more options for the production of nuclear weapons. At the same time, Pakistan is capable of producing the heavy water necessary to moderate these reactors. The heavy water reactors associated with plutonium production are thought to produce about 10kgs of plutonium per year. Some say you can?t eat Plutonium but according to a Brooking analyst Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay ?Of course you can sell it and use the proceeds to buy a very nice meal.
Secondly Pakistan is a country formed and founded by Islamic ideology. Pakistan is THE LAND of THE PURE and never ever this land will disintegrate or wither away not as long as the PEOPLE have the UNITY, FAITH and DISCLIPLINE. Surely Pakistan knows when is the proper time to strike and to rise again stronger than ever before, for they very well know how to control their impetus from the words of Dr. Allama Iqbal ?A person who knows and controls himself rules the world.?
TJ
15. Apr, 2010
Sylvia Villalobos ‘s comments are based on sound observations and study. Her views are even better than many of the local scholars.
Her view on ‘buy out’ policy of Americans and Pakistan’s nuclear preferences, are very thought full that leads to correct analysis, like she writes as followings:
” Pakistan knows when is the proper time to strike and to rise again stronger than ever before, ” is a serious lead to follow.”
The intriguing powers should not remain oblivious of the fact that Pakistan’s nuclear status is a thing to reckon with.
Besides, the conventional nuclear assets, Pakistan might have the tactical nuclear capability, that might ; up set the whole scenario.
I agree with her view on a negotiated resolution of Afghanistan She has correctly deduced it in her comments:
” Whereas several terrorist groups in the past have ended because of a political solution, Afghan Taliban broad goals make this unlikely. Since its goal remains the establishment of a pan-Islamic caliphate, there is little reason to expect that a negotiated settlement with the US governments is possible.”
In the main article the Indian presence and its implications have been judiciously analyzed, the following analysis is worth consideration and should be read with the concern Pakistan show in this regard:
” Indeed, India?s legitimate commercial and political interests in Afghanistan cannot be disputed; that is not the issue. The problem lies elsewhere: Fundamentally, the close Indian political-military alliance with the US directly threatens the possibility of an immediate political settlement in Afghanistan and long-lasting peace and political stability in this entire region.”
And finally in my analysis though emotionally charged lines but what I feel it show the true spirit of Pakistan , Sylvia concludes it in these words, Sylvia says while concluding this:
” Pakistan is a country formed and founded by Islamic ideology. Pakistan is THE LAND of THE PURE and never ever this land will disintegrate or wither away not as long as the PEOPLE have the UNITY, FAITH and DISCLIPLINE. Surely Pakistan knows when is the proper time to strike and to rise again stronger than ever before, for they very well know how to control their impetus from the words of Dr. Allama Iqbal ?A person who knows and controls himself rules the world.?
American if can read rightly in these line, they should prefer to pack than stay in occupied territories any more. That is the mother of all solutions.
TJ
15. Apr, 2010
My views on negotiated resolution of the Afghan problem is different than Sylvia. It should be read as
‘I don’t agree that a negotiated resolution of the problem is not possible as she has commented”
Please note for clarification, however I agree with most of what she has commented.
neel123
15. Apr, 2010
@ sylvia t villalobos,
First of all it was not India’s presumption, but the preumption of the author on behalf of India, that Pakistan will fall apart, although India would care less if it eventually happens.
Secondly, your argument that Pakistan can not fall apart because of its superior nukes rings hollow. The Soviets would not fall apart if your thesis was true. Pakistan survives because of generous American economic and military aid. The real test of Pakistan will be when these aids are withdrawn.
Thirdly, are you a Pakistani in disguise ? You quote from Dr. Allama Iqbal , and sound like a hardcore Pakistani nationalist……..why this drama of a Phillipino name ….. ?
TJ
15. Apr, 2010
I think the argument in which the neel 123 is basing his or here argument, is make the base than India should be heading first towards disintegration.
India is not what it pretends. It is far inferior in so many areas. As Lenin says the quantity has a quality of its own, same is true of India that actually is not a real quality but a rush of population that hides so many dirt and that is what make, ‘quality of its own’ .
Such a quality is not sustainable. India has got only one option like most of the world issue prone states, it is negotiations.
India’s mass is misleading and misguiding in the international relations. The strategic mass of Pakistan is much more than any other state which if weakened would be devastating for India and would not take time to impact and result in its disintegration and negative fall out on its comparative peace.
neel123
16. Apr, 2010
Today India is what the world has recognized it to be, and not what the Pakistanis in denial would like it to be.
India is on a roll regardless of Pakistani propaganda to mislead its own population.
A few decades down the road, the gulf between India and Pakistan will be too wide for comfort of the Pakistanis in denial like TJ.