The Road Home from Kabul
Posted on 30. Jun, 2011 by Editor in Af-Pak
Drawing down troops from Afghanistan is the right move. Now it's time to focus on the real threat in the neighborhood: the one coming from Pakistan.
By John Kerry
This week, President Barack Obama fulfilled a promise he made to the American people in 2009 to begin responsibly ending the war in Afghanistan. His decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from the country over the next year came from a position of strength, thanks in large part to our men and women in uniform and their civilian counterparts who helped break the Taliban's momentum.
We brought Osama bin Laden to justice and defeated al Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is now time to reduce the U.S. footprint and for Afghans to take charge of their country and its future. It is time to focus on the real threats in the region: those that emanate from Pakistan.
Much work remains to be done, and the withdrawal should be seen as the beginning of a new path toward success. The steps that the United States, the Afghans, and the international community need to take in the coming months are clear and achievable.
First, we must recognize that we will still be fighting two separate but intertwined wars. The first is against Mullah Omar's Taliban in southern Afghanistan, the group that provided sanctuary to al Qaeda. We must make sure they never do that again. The president's surge gave our military the forces it needed to launch robust operations against the Afghan Taliban, weaken its base, and force its leadersto consider negotiations as a way to survive. Our reconciliation efforts are mostly aimed at this group, which may be driven by a radical interpretation of Islam but whose interests are confined to Afghanistan.
The other war is against those who are likely irreconcilable and dedicated to attacking us, chiefly the Haqqani network and its allies in eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. As our troops shift from the south to the east, their mission should shift accordingly from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism. It's the job of the Afghan security forces to win hearts and minds. Along the border with Pakistan, where insurgent groups pose a major threat, we should continue to train and work closely with elite Afghan units and the Pakistani military to root them out once and for all. There will be no rest for those who seek to do us harm.
Second, we must work with Pakistan to satisfy both our interests in Afghanistan and Islamabad's. This won't be easy. Relations between the two countries have deteriorated sharply since bin Laden was killed near Pakistan's premier military academy. American politicians and the public have responded with incredulity to the notion that the world's most wanted man was hiding in plain sight a couple of hours from the capital city of Islamabad, and Pakistan's leaders were angered and embarrassed by the violation of the country's sovereignty. The task is difficult, too, because some insurgent networks have long-standing ties to the Pakistani state, which has used them as proxies in the fight against India and permits them sanctuaries from which they attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan. At the same time, other insurgents have attacked Pakistani security forces and civilians, killing more than 35,000 people.
Despite these differences, there is common ground with Pakistan. We have shared interest in a political deal to end the conflict in Afghanistan and allow the exodus of U.S. troops. We also share an interest in reining in the extremists who are attacking Pakistan and avoiding another Mumbai-style attack that could destabilize Pakistan-India relations. We need to build on these common interests.
Third, we must push for a political settlement in Afghanistan because ultimately there can be no military solution to the country's problems. This is why I am heartened that the Obama administration is seriously pursuing talks with the Taliban. For reconciliation to work and be enforced, we have to listen closely to our Afghan and Pakistani partners to make sure any deal reflects their real interests and has regional support. We also want to make certain that the rights of all Afghans, including women and minorities, are protected. We can help negotiate a regional framework for Afghanistan that includes key players such as Pakistan, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, neighboring countries in Central Asia — and even Iran, with which the United States has begun preliminary talks. Tehran's interests and influence in Afghanistan merit a place at the table at some point.
Fourth, we should make sure that the Afghan leaders and people know that the fate of their country now lies in their own hands. President Hamid Karzai has said he will honor the Afghan Constitution and step aside in 2014 as the country holds its next presidential election. This will be a key opportunity for Afghans to chart a new course.
A successful transition will be challenging. We need to rethink how best to build and sustain the Afghan army and police in order to leave behind an effective, targeted security force — not 350,000 unpaid, armed, and angry soldiers. And we have to take concrete steps to prevent the collapse of the wartime economy we have helped create, such as slowly reducing our assistance and working with other donors to set a standard wage so that we stop hiring so many of Afghanistan's qualified civil servants to work for foreign governments and organizations.
Karzai must do his part, too. This means putting the Afghan economy on track by supporting International Monetary Fund negotiations to develop acceptable banking standards, achieving financial stability, and resolving the Kabul Bank crisis; restoring legitimacy to parliament by overturning the special elections tribunal, which is trying to throw out the results of last year's parliamentary elections; and taking firm steps to combat the predatory corruption that alienates the Afghan people from their government.
The road home from Afghanistan will not be easy. Wars do not end overnight, and we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by abandoning the region. Even as our troops withdraw, the Taliban and others should understand that the United States remains committed for the long run and will never again tolerate extremist sanctuaries that threaten our interests. But if we focus on what is necessary, achievable, and sustainable, our troops can come home while leaving behind a stable Afghanistan capable of charting its own future.
Courtesy Foreign Policy.
loading...
Nawaz Ansari
30. Jun, 2011
Type your comment here…The US withdrawal from Afghanistan will eliminate the biggest transgression of Pakistani sovereignty, the US drone attacks and black ops.
For so long as American neo-colonialism had continued its so called “war on terror” inside Pakistan, their neo-fascism had denied Pakistan the one thing that has kept Pakistan united all these years – Islam.
The American bias has made the pseudo secular state of Pakistan her illogical goal and consequently once the US is gone, Pakistan is free to decide whether to reintegrate Islam back into the government more openly.
The Imperial US has let itself become more hindrance rather than help with regards to the prosperity, progress and stability of Pakistan by supporting her patsies to carry out terror attacks on innocent civilians inside Pakistan (Raymond Davis episode) thus parts of Pakistan are now said to be the virtual headquarters of the US created and financed terror organizations.
The US does not want to admit that its long military engagement in Afghanistan has been a disaster of monumental proportions in strategic, economic and political realms. Strategically, it has seriously damaged its ally; Pakistan by putting forward plausible schemes and the use of unscrupulous trickery to defraud Pakistanis to secure empire’s future energy needs (Balochistan).
As the U.S. looks ahead to its “phased” withdrawal from Afghanistan, even more attention will be directed toward Pakistan, as Obama administration officials say ”al-Qaida and its allies are still plotting attacks against the West”
Since Pakistan effectively blocks American troops inside the country and has been a reluctant ally in targeting those the U.S. perceives as a threat, Washington has increasingly relied on illegal covert CIA drone missile strikes inside Pakistan, the future of the drone attacks in Pakistan could be threatened by pervasive anti-American sentiment and anger, thus Afghanistan could become a new significance for the U.S. as a base to launch illegal attacks against neighboring Pakistan.
Rehmat
30. Jun, 2011
Senator John Kerry, as a Jewish Lobby's agent – has repeated the recommendation of the powerful Jewish think tank, CFR, headed by a Zionist Jew, Dr. Richard Haass.
Stephen Biddle, the defense expert at powerfull Jewish think tank, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) suggested on June 24, 2011 that the reduction in US occupation forces will send a wrong signal to Afghans and Pakistanis. He blamed Pakistanis for the failure of Zionists’ Afghan project. “The biggest problem we face in Afghanistan is hedging behaviors by Afghans and Pakistanis that make governance reform in Afghanistan very hard and that make progress against Taliban base camps in Pakistan very hard”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/obamas-afghan-military-drawdown-rant/
starviego
01. Jul, 2011
What a bunch of war mongering garbage.
Afghanistan: Trilateral Talks | Opinion Maker
01. Jul, 2011
[...] to focus on the real threat in the neighborhood: the one coming from Pakistan.” In his paper, The Road Home From Kabul. These statements are a terrorism of a different kind where a sovereign state is being threatened [...]
03. Jul, 2011
Haven’t bothered to study Kerry much. Looks fairly charismatic, somewhat decayed, abit waxwork-like BUT when I saw his net worth (210 million for Kerry, over a 1 billion for Kerry’s wife), I totally decided that someone else should be holding his post.
You see plutocrats are not Joe Public, and Joe Public policy could never come from plutocrats.
Have the wealth? You don’t need power. Have the power? You don’t need wealth. Have both wealth and power? Then we the people don’t need you. Separation of powers obviously precludes not being a plutocrat due to conflict of interest and believe me the collusion is unbelievable now that we cannot afford politicians to be plutocrats as well.