BY
LT COL (R) TARIQ MAHMOOD BUTT, TI (M)
The horrendous attacks on the United States on September 11th had generated an intense debate and a search for answers not only in the US but also around the world. The resultant “Global War on Terrorism” unleashed against Afghanistan shaped new curiosity about Afghanistan and its already troubled neighbour Pakistan. Once the mainstay of United States in the Cold War Era, and the bastion for breeding, feeding and harbouring the Mujahideen movement, Pakistan’s support was consequential in breaking up the formerly bipolar world and solely responsible for the orchestrated New World Order, Pakistan once again stands alongside to their former allies and rest of the world against the menace of terrorism.
The hunt for Osama Bin Laden – one man, took more than a decade for the entire world put together. Being the primary contention for invading Afghanistan and killing of thousands of humans, innocent or otherwise, The United States now feels necessitated to pull out its forces from Afghanistan. They now want a negotiated settlement with the Taliban (whom they consider non al-Qaeda), which they now believe is need of the hour. Fresh questions require answers.
“What is going to be the nature of the new regime in Afghanistan?”
“Are we to believe that US is now agreeing to include the so called barbaric faction of extremist Taliban in the new setup?”
“Is US going to give way to the foundation of a new anti- imperialist Islamist regime, will Israel agree? ”
“If not, how would Taliban react to it? A bunch of friendly Taliban may be put in place for face saving, but rest assure that won’t work”
and the most important question of all “What is to be done in this historical epoch?”
As a prologue to the ‘Great Game’ US has so far technically succeeded in forming an imperialist armed ring against the Central Asian Oil Republics —stretching from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, the target, of course the oil resources of the former Soviet Union. The formation of such competing military-political-economic blocks is an inherent feature of monopoly capitalism. The capture of sources, raw material and commodity markets has been the basis of two world wars. Every imperialist power must expand or face the threat of being swallowed by another more rapacious imperialist power. Lenin referred to this propensity as the Law of Combined and Uneven Development of Capitalism. This intensely competitive struggle for resources leads to militarization and war. In other words, war is an integral feature of the imperialist system. The most aggressive and ravenous is none other USA, utilising their enormous propaganda machine to disguise and camouflage each particular step as a different campaign. The “war against terror”, the war against “greater Serbia”, Chechnya, Daghestan, and so on, are all part of a solitary objective to consolidate their Global Hegemony.
Carter’s National Security Adviser, Brzezinski, admitted that the US intervened in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union. He said: “The US began aiding the Islamic Fundamentalist Moujahadeen six months before the Russians made their move, even though we believed that this aid was going to induce a soviet military intervention...the secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap...the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’
(Blum Rogue State, by William Blum, pages. 4-5).
But who were the sufferers, naturally, the Afghan people who were subjected to so many years of war at the behest of the American imperialists and are still not to see peace, not in times to come I presume. The worst to suffer and still does is Pakistan and its innocent people who are subjected to unprecedented terrorism both at the hands of suicide attackers and drone attacks by their so called brethren in Islam and Americans respectively (the number of innocent people killed in targeting a single al-Qaeda suspect has no justification as in both Wars against Iraq and Afghanistan).
One of the validations offered, by the former President Gen Musharraf and present leadership is, “all this is being done to save Pakistan and guard it against any misadventures of United States”.
The Iraqi invasion yet another misadventure of US was based on wrong or lets be precise alleged/make-believe information about weapons of mass destruction. It was amply discussed with clear recommendations by IAEA that Iraq has no such capability, to be proven later as a ground reality. A Hollywood block buster movie titled “Green Zone” starring Mat Dammon tells you all.
The initial war against Iraq was a sequel to Saddam’s attack on Kuwait (with the consent of the then American Ambassador to Iraq) and its occupation. Then US attacked Iraq along with coalition forces and freed Kuwait. Saddam’s contention was his claim on Kuwait to be an integral province of Iraq. US invasion of Iraq and Iraq's attack on Kuwait were based on falsehood, thus they both stand to be immoral. On the gravity of immorality, the facts point towards US invasion of Iraq. It was based on wrong information on weapons of mass destruction and terrorists in Iraq. Majority of international community was against this war. The number of civilian casualties in invasion of Iraq was so high that it makes one scream out loud. The fallout is even worse because it continues to kill more every day, not to mention the regional instability and continual terrorism.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., in his superb tome titled “America's Misadventures in the Middle East”, gives a devastating critique of American grand strategy in the Middle East. Commenting on “the American way of war", and in particular on Washington's failure in recent decades to plan for a stable and satisfactory political end-state for the wars it wages. The author calls the Iraq war as a military triumph and not a political success. On war termination strategy – on how to get the other side to acknowledge its defeat and make the concessions necessary to relieve it of further pressure. So in the case of the first Gulf War and in a sense the invasion of Iraq as well, the United States did not know what to do once it had won militarily. Adding further he opines that in the case of the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein was never forced to confront the reality of his defeat or to acknowledge it politically. He, therefore, was able to turn his continued survival into a point of political strength rather than weakness and to carry on for many more years. It resulted in great suffering for the Iraqi people and eventually led to a war designed primarily to dislodge him from power, which was its only accomplishment. The mistakes that the United States has made: too much reliance on the use of force, the use of military campaigns as a substitute for strategy, the tendency to go at it alone, the building of coalitions of camp followers rather than serious military and diplomatic partners, and the inability to deal with the regional context of much of what Americans were doing. That last point lays in part because of US incapacities with respect to Iran, but more broadly their inability to engage, in the case of Iraq, the various countries on the periphery effectively – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Kuwait. In Part IV he assesses the impact that America's policy failings in the Middle East have had on its ability to continue leading the world in the same way it did in the half-century following the end of World War II. "Why not try diplomacy?" is the title of one chapter there. But it could be seen as the leitmotif of the whole of Part IV, or indeed, the whole book.
The actions of United States in bringing peace to the world as acclaimed has a single line ambition, “Rule The World” by any means whether it be pseudo wars or use of diplomacy as persisted by Chas Freemen. A vivid example and case in point is the constant denials by United States covering decades about perceived Indian role of policing the South Asian region and the envisaged China Containment Policy, which was finally accepted and unveiled by no less than the Secy of State herself during a recent visit to India.
At times one is forced to imagine as to “Who is the actual architect of American policy after all?”
“Chas W. Freeman, Jr., author of America's Misadventures in the Middle East hit the headlines in the early weeks of the Obama administration when Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis C. Blair named him Chair of the National Intelligence Council, citing his "diverse background in defense, diplomacy and intelligence." News of Freeman's impending appointment met a firestorm of criticism from numerous strongly pro-Israeli commentators, who lambasted him for the view he had often expressed that the U.S. needed to maintain an even-handed stance between Israel and the Arab countries. In early March 2009, Freeman withdrew his name from consideration for the position and issued a statement, laying the blame for the campaign against him on a network of pro-Israel activists”.
The attack and occupation of Afghanistan and its annihilation is nothing short of a crime against humanity and genocide against a defense less people.
What is to be Done?
It is clear that outside powers have meddled in Afghanistan’s internal affairs far too long. Therefore, all peace loving individuals cum nations must work concertedly and exploit their last bit energies to expose the grimy role of the ruling classes of their respective countries for global harmony and milieu of peaceful coexistence as contemplated and laid out in the charter of United Nations.
"It is Pakistan's stated policy that it will not allow its soil to be used in terrorist attacks against any country," the Pakistani foreign ministry said. "Pakistan's political leadership, parliament, state institutions and the whole nation are fully united in their resolve to eliminate terrorism."
Pakistan's struggle to root out terrorist strongholds and training camps, coupled with a unilateral U.S. effort to use drone strikes to combat al- Qaeda on Pakistani soil, have stoked mutual distrust between the two countries. The incursion of U.S. forces into Pakistani territory to kill bin Laden have further strained relations. Remedial measures are being taken to limit the damage done.
Though serving a mutual interest, Pakistan with its limited resources has done much more than expected and suffered profoundly, both in terms of human and economic resources. The impact of being a front line ally on GWOT has profusely effected the overall security situation in Pakistan. But the American leadership is still not satisfied. In an interview to the CNN on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, US Vice President Joe Biden remarked, “Pakistan has been an unreliable ally of the US in the war against terror and failed ‘on occasion’ when forced to choose between Washington and the al-Qaeda”.
What else do the Americans expect from Pakistan as a trusted Ally?
Or is this just an added reason to make grounds for another yet greater misadventure?
Pakistan Armed Forces have till date contributed tremendously towards GWOT and played its part surely in every eventuality, to safe guard National interest and integrity of the country. The LEA’s, intelligence community and media have also done their bit and so has the incumbent democracy. The episode of US misadventure and the covert raid killing Osama Bin Laden was a direct blow on the sovereignty of the country; it had virtually traumatized every Pakistani. The hard-hitting reaction from the entire Nation was rightly called for. The setback in bilateral ties with US is slowly and gradually thawing, but have we really learned from it? Are we really ready to guard against any future misadventures? American intent is quiet clear as proclaimed by the President himself on the night of the referred raid, quote “Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was," Unquote. They won’t hesitate in furthering their misadventures in Pakistan, may it be our nuclear assets for fear of seizure by Taliban, the Baloch imbroglio or any other imaginably protracted reason.
The hunt for Osama Bin Laden – one man, took more than a decade for the entire world put together. Being the primary contention for invading Afghanistan and killing of thousands of humans, innocent or otherwise, The United States now feels necessitated to pull out its forces from Afghanistan. They now want a negotiated settlement with the Taliban (whom they consider non al-Qaeda), which they now believe is need of the hour. Fresh questions require answers.
“What is going to be the nature of the new regime in Afghanistan?”
“Are we to believe that US is now agreeing to include the so called barbaric faction of extremist Taliban in the new setup?”
“Is US going to give way to the foundation of a new anti- imperialist Islamist regime, will Israel agree? ”
“If not, how would Taliban react to it? A bunch of friendly Taliban may be put in place for face saving, but rest assure that won’t work”
and the most important question of all “What is to be done in this historical epoch?”
As a prologue to the ‘Great Game’ US has so far technically succeeded in forming an imperialist armed ring against the Central Asian Oil Republics —stretching from Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, the target, of course the oil resources of the former Soviet Union. The formation of such competing military-political-economic blocks is an inherent feature of monopoly capitalism. The capture of sources, raw material and commodity markets has been the basis of two world wars. Every imperialist power must expand or face the threat of being swallowed by another more rapacious imperialist power. Lenin referred to this propensity as the Law of Combined and Uneven Development of Capitalism. This intensely competitive struggle for resources leads to militarization and war. In other words, war is an integral feature of the imperialist system. The most aggressive and ravenous is none other USA, utilising their enormous propaganda machine to disguise and camouflage each particular step as a different campaign. The “war against terror”, the war against “greater Serbia”, Chechnya, Daghestan, and so on, are all part of a solitary objective to consolidate their Global Hegemony.
Carter’s National Security Adviser, Brzezinski, admitted that the US intervened in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union. He said: “The US began aiding the Islamic Fundamentalist Moujahadeen six months before the Russians made their move, even though we believed that this aid was going to induce a soviet military intervention...the secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap...the day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: we now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.’
(Blum Rogue State, by William Blum, pages. 4-5).
But who were the sufferers, naturally, the Afghan people who were subjected to so many years of war at the behest of the American imperialists and are still not to see peace, not in times to come I presume. The worst to suffer and still does is Pakistan and its innocent people who are subjected to unprecedented terrorism both at the hands of suicide attackers and drone attacks by their so called brethren in Islam and Americans respectively (the number of innocent people killed in targeting a single al-Qaeda suspect has no justification as in both Wars against Iraq and Afghanistan).
One of the validations offered, by the former President Gen Musharraf and present leadership is, “all this is being done to save Pakistan and guard it against any misadventures of United States”.
The Iraqi invasion yet another misadventure of US was based on wrong or lets be precise alleged/make-believe information about weapons of mass destruction. It was amply discussed with clear recommendations by IAEA that Iraq has no such capability, to be proven later as a ground reality. A Hollywood block buster movie titled “Green Zone” starring Mat Dammon tells you all.
The initial war against Iraq was a sequel to Saddam’s attack on Kuwait (with the consent of the then American Ambassador to Iraq) and its occupation. Then US attacked Iraq along with coalition forces and freed Kuwait. Saddam’s contention was his claim on Kuwait to be an integral province of Iraq. US invasion of Iraq and Iraq's attack on Kuwait were based on falsehood, thus they both stand to be immoral. On the gravity of immorality, the facts point towards US invasion of Iraq. It was based on wrong information on weapons of mass destruction and terrorists in Iraq. Majority of international community was against this war. The number of civilian casualties in invasion of Iraq was so high that it makes one scream out loud. The fallout is even worse because it continues to kill more every day, not to mention the regional instability and continual terrorism.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., in his superb tome titled “America's Misadventures in the Middle East”, gives a devastating critique of American grand strategy in the Middle East. Commenting on “the American way of war", and in particular on Washington's failure in recent decades to plan for a stable and satisfactory political end-state for the wars it wages. The author calls the Iraq war as a military triumph and not a political success. On war termination strategy – on how to get the other side to acknowledge its defeat and make the concessions necessary to relieve it of further pressure. So in the case of the first Gulf War and in a sense the invasion of Iraq as well, the United States did not know what to do once it had won militarily. Adding further he opines that in the case of the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein was never forced to confront the reality of his defeat or to acknowledge it politically. He, therefore, was able to turn his continued survival into a point of political strength rather than weakness and to carry on for many more years. It resulted in great suffering for the Iraqi people and eventually led to a war designed primarily to dislodge him from power, which was its only accomplishment. The mistakes that the United States has made: too much reliance on the use of force, the use of military campaigns as a substitute for strategy, the tendency to go at it alone, the building of coalitions of camp followers rather than serious military and diplomatic partners, and the inability to deal with the regional context of much of what Americans were doing. That last point lays in part because of US incapacities with respect to Iran, but more broadly their inability to engage, in the case of Iraq, the various countries on the periphery effectively – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Kuwait. In Part IV he assesses the impact that America's policy failings in the Middle East have had on its ability to continue leading the world in the same way it did in the half-century following the end of World War II. "Why not try diplomacy?" is the title of one chapter there. But it could be seen as the leitmotif of the whole of Part IV, or indeed, the whole book.
The actions of United States in bringing peace to the world as acclaimed has a single line ambition, “Rule The World” by any means whether it be pseudo wars or use of diplomacy as persisted by Chas Freemen. A vivid example and case in point is the constant denials by United States covering decades about perceived Indian role of policing the South Asian region and the envisaged China Containment Policy, which was finally accepted and unveiled by no less than the Secy of State herself during a recent visit to India.
At times one is forced to imagine as to “Who is the actual architect of American policy after all?”
“Chas W. Freeman, Jr., author of America's Misadventures in the Middle East hit the headlines in the early weeks of the Obama administration when Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis C. Blair named him Chair of the National Intelligence Council, citing his "diverse background in defense, diplomacy and intelligence." News of Freeman's impending appointment met a firestorm of criticism from numerous strongly pro-Israeli commentators, who lambasted him for the view he had often expressed that the U.S. needed to maintain an even-handed stance between Israel and the Arab countries. In early March 2009, Freeman withdrew his name from consideration for the position and issued a statement, laying the blame for the campaign against him on a network of pro-Israel activists”.
The attack and occupation of Afghanistan and its annihilation is nothing short of a crime against humanity and genocide against a defense less people.
What is to be Done?
It is clear that outside powers have meddled in Afghanistan’s internal affairs far too long. Therefore, all peace loving individuals cum nations must work concertedly and exploit their last bit energies to expose the grimy role of the ruling classes of their respective countries for global harmony and milieu of peaceful coexistence as contemplated and laid out in the charter of United Nations.
"It is Pakistan's stated policy that it will not allow its soil to be used in terrorist attacks against any country," the Pakistani foreign ministry said. "Pakistan's political leadership, parliament, state institutions and the whole nation are fully united in their resolve to eliminate terrorism."
Pakistan's struggle to root out terrorist strongholds and training camps, coupled with a unilateral U.S. effort to use drone strikes to combat al- Qaeda on Pakistani soil, have stoked mutual distrust between the two countries. The incursion of U.S. forces into Pakistani territory to kill bin Laden have further strained relations. Remedial measures are being taken to limit the damage done.
Though serving a mutual interest, Pakistan with its limited resources has done much more than expected and suffered profoundly, both in terms of human and economic resources. The impact of being a front line ally on GWOT has profusely effected the overall security situation in Pakistan. But the American leadership is still not satisfied. In an interview to the CNN on the tenth anniversary of 9/11, US Vice President Joe Biden remarked, “Pakistan has been an unreliable ally of the US in the war against terror and failed ‘on occasion’ when forced to choose between Washington and the al-Qaeda”.
What else do the Americans expect from Pakistan as a trusted Ally?
Or is this just an added reason to make grounds for another yet greater misadventure?
Pakistan Armed Forces have till date contributed tremendously towards GWOT and played its part surely in every eventuality, to safe guard National interest and integrity of the country. The LEA’s, intelligence community and media have also done their bit and so has the incumbent democracy. The episode of US misadventure and the covert raid killing Osama Bin Laden was a direct blow on the sovereignty of the country; it had virtually traumatized every Pakistani. The hard-hitting reaction from the entire Nation was rightly called for. The setback in bilateral ties with US is slowly and gradually thawing, but have we really learned from it? Are we really ready to guard against any future misadventures? American intent is quiet clear as proclaimed by the President himself on the night of the referred raid, quote “Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action within Pakistan if we knew where bin Laden was," Unquote. They won’t hesitate in furthering their misadventures in Pakistan, may it be our nuclear assets for fear of seizure by Taliban, the Baloch imbroglio or any other imaginably protracted reason.
