Posted on 05/26/2006 11:04:34 AM PDT by nickcarraway
AS UNPRECEDENTED Taleban violence sweeps across southern Afghanistan, four players in the region Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and Nato are locked in a tense standoff rather than cooperating to defeat the terrorists.
At stake is the future survival of Afghanistans moderate government and stability in Pakistan. To prop up Afghanistan and combat the Taleban, the US and NATO may have to make major concessions to Pakistans military regime, but any concessions would anger the Afghans, encourage the extremists and allow the unpopular military to dominate Pakistanís political scene for another five years.
More than 200 people were killed and hundreds wounded in fierce fighting that swept four provinces in southern Afghanistan starting May 18 and continued for the next three days. It was the worst bout of violence since the defeat of the Taleban in December 2001 and the opening shots in a promised Taleban offensive this summer to deter some 9,000 NATO troops from deploying in southern Afghanistan.
"Nato will not fail in Afghanistan. The family of nations will expect nothing less than success," said General James Jones, the head of US and NATO forces in Europe, adding that Nato will double its deployment in Afghanistan to 18,000 troops. Jones also made an impassioned plea for Nato governments to end the caveats that they impose on their troops, making it next to impossible for commanders to run a proper military campaign. The caveats number 71, and Jones calls them "Natos operational canceríí and ìan impediment to success."
President Hamid Karzai and the Afghans worry about Nato.
Unlike the US-led combat force, some NATO countries contribute troops only for reconstruction. The Taleban know this and test Natos commitment. Some 800 Afghans and 34 foreign soldiers have been killed this year in escalating violence, as small Taleban groups expand to hundreds of fighters each. An indirect confirmation of the growing Taleban presence and the difficulty in fighting them without large civilian casualties was evident in late May, when in a single night of bombing on a Taleban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, the coalition forces claimed to have killed 80 fighters but the operation also took some 17 civilian lives.
But this setback is unlikely to change the Taliban design to test US resolve. Natos deployment is part of Washingtons agenda to reduce its forces in Afghanistan. The US is pulling 3,000 troops this summer and maybe more before the November congressional elections. Most Afghans anticipate a full US withdrawal, despite American promises that it remains committed to Afghanistan. The Karzai government is angry with Washington, and also frustrated at the US attitude toward Pakistan.
Senior Nato officials in Madrid told YaleGlobal that Pakistans military regime is turning a blind eye to Taleban recruitment and control taking place in Balochistan province. Pakistan has lost more than 600 troops fighting Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in the North West Frontier Province, but has done little to control the Taleban in Balochistan, say Nato officers.
US and European officials have urged Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to do more. "We are trying to engage with Pakistan and convince them to do the right thing," says a senior NATO officer. A recent Nato delegation to Islamabad tried to woo the military by offering officers visits to Nato schools in Europe. Pakistan insists it is doing what it can to reign in the Taliban. General Shaukat Sultan, the armyís principal spokesman, says Pakistan will act the moment NATO or the US gives, "actionable intelligence as to where Taliban leaders are."
However Pakistans real gripe is with the Americans. In recent months an angry Musharraf has quietly, but deliberately defied them. Relations between the two countries have not been so poor since 9/11. In March Bush spent just a few hours in Islamabad after spending several days in India, where he gave recognition to Indias nuclear weapons programme, but refused to do the same for Pakistan.
So in recent weeks Islamabad has said the investigation into top nuclear scientist A Q Khan, the worlds worst proliferator of nuclear technology, is at an end just when Washington again urges Pakistan to allow US investigators direct access to Khan, who is under house arrest in Islamabad and could prove that Iran is intent on making nuclear weapons. More than a decade ago Khan provided key nuclear equipment to Iran. However, Islamabad is in no mood to do Washington any favours or annoy Teheran.
"Yes we are under a lot of pressure on the issue of Dr. A. Q. Khan, but we will not surrender," Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri told the upper house of parliament on May 19. "We are an ally of the US in the global war on terror, but we will not take dictation from anybody on our national interests." Pakistan also pushes ahead to build a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to India, at a cost of US $7.2 billion, despite repeated US warnings not to do so.
The push for a lucrative gas pipeline to India, however, has not reduced Pakistans public antipathy towards India. The Pakistani army accuses Washington and Nato of turning a blind eye to India funding an insurgency in Baluchistan that has claimed hundreds of lives. India denies the charge. Pakistan is also convinced that the US and Afghanistan are allowing Indian spy agencies unparalleled access among the Pashtun tribes in southern Afghanistan, from where they are destabilizing Pakistan.
So its not surprising that the military still looks to the Taleban as its long-term proxy force in Afghanistan. The military assumes that they have as much of a right as the government in Kabul to influence events and make key appointments in the Pashtun belt in southern Afghanistan even though Afghanistan is a sovereign state. The army has a legacy of influencing the south since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 27 years ago.
Pakistan wants the Americans and Nato to concede to its version of reality and also give the Taleban and other Afghan extremist factions a place at the table in Kabul.
Musharrafs real aim is to get unqualified US endorsement for his re-election as president for another five-year term, while retaining his post as army chief. Thus, recent statements by senior US officials, including National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, demanding free and fair elections in 2007 and civilian control over the Pakistan, disturb Pakistani generals.
Musharraf insists there will be free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections, but the army is already making plans to limit the participation of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the largest secular opposition party. In 2002 the army rigged the elections, and parliament is now packed with pro-army politicians and Islamic fundamentalists.
Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place. A fair election would most likely result in a parliament hostile to continued army rule. However a rigged election endangers his grip on power and the armys prestige, and he views US support for the army as critical in mitigating international fallout. However, military rule has run its course in Pakistan. It is deeply unpopular and no longer has the credibility to resist Islamic fundamentalists. At the end of the day, Washington might do what it has done time and again: take a deep breath and support the only ally that may still stand between the planned US withdrawal and the return of the Taleban.
Ahmed Rashid is the author of Taleban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. He wrote this comment for Yale Center for the Study of Globalisation
Looks like my next tour there will be a bit more interesting!
I think we also need to be worrying about the rise of the Taliban in the DNC.
Musharrif simply doesn't want the 4th assassination attempt to be successful.
I don't get this reporting... follows several MSM reports from the past few weeks.
Yes, taliban are coming down from the mountains as they usually do when the weather gets better, but everything I read has them dying in silly numbers. 5:1 against Afghani police at the LOW end. 150 dead, 130 are taliban or whatever.
And all the headlines were all about "Taliban is back" and "violence rocks Afghanistan leaves 104 dead" (not mentioning only 4 were Afghani police, 1 Canadian, and 99 Taliban)
He didnt know it at the time, but Keith Ellison took a large step toward changing that earlier this month when he won the Democratic endorsement for the seat of retiring Rep. Martin Sabo (D-Minn.) in one of the safest Democratic districts in the country.
Ellison, a black Muslim, still faces a September primary challenge that could feature Sabos chief of staff, a former state Democratic party chairman. But he has already gotten closer than any other Muslim candidate in recent years and would be the first Muslim in Congress, according to several national Muslim groups. . .
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is at the forefront of Muslim get-out-the-vote efforts nationwide. Spokesman Corey Saylor said CAIR put together substantial efforts in Ohio and Florida in 2004 and will broaden its scope in the upcoming midterms.
He said most of the progress in getting candidates elected has been on the local level but an Ellison victory would be a breakthrough.
I think it would be huge, no questions asked particularly for a community that feels very much like its presence in the United States is being questioned, Saylor said. This would be a tremendous assertion of the fact that were Americans and were just as interested in public service as anyone else, and heres the proof we have somebody in Congress.
Saylor attributed the fact that there have been no Muslims in Congress to two things: The Muslim political movement in America is in its infancy, with the first groups having started less than two decades ago, and the lasting effects of Sept. 11 and the negative perceptions about Muslims that have resulted.
"My next tour there will be a bit more interesting!"
Not necessarily. It will depend on what kind of unit you are with. My son is there now. He says he is more likely to be killed in a traffic accident than combat or IED, or by a US soldier who hasn't remembered to clear his weapon.
His most recent emails comment on our Army's failure to use special forces effectively, with dependence on the big Army for what is essentially a guerilla campaign. He sees this as the same mistake we made in Vietnam, with possibly the same results. I will put a number of his emails together and post them in the next month.
In case you are interested you can see two previous FR posts composed of our war correspondence: "Front Line Views of Iraq/Afghanist War Situation", and "Front Line Views..., No. 2." He is not a very happy camper. At any rate, good luck.
While the current Taleban offensive may sound omnious via the media, tactically it has been a disaster. The Tali have come out in larger formations, all the greater target for airpower to hit, and hit they have. The Tali have been taking big losses and not been able to hold the ground it claims to have 'taken'.
While they have gotten some support from Iraqi "veterans", the tactical situation is different (Iraq - largely urban; Afghanistan - largely rural/open). What this year's 'offensive' indicates is that Pakistan is not doing enough to shut down safe havens along the border which are allowing the Tali to regroup, plan and train during the winter.
how can you read that story and conclude he is going to win???
He is running against martin sabo's chief of staff...he'll be lucky to get 10%
That's too bad. Our morale was sky high there.
Geeeee .. we just killed about 120 of them .. there can't be that many left ..??
"The US may be in Afghanistan longer than Iraq."
This is what my son thinks is likely. He feels that from what he sees there now, if we pull out any time soon, conditions will revert to what they were before.
As to how there can be so many Taliban, in addition to the thousands who are living in Quetta and other cross border Pakistan areas, there are also a number living in Afg. rural areas. My son feels a lot of this is fighting to preserve access to the opium trade and the money it brings. This would be used for armaments, and to help bring in the terrorists who are fleeing from Iraq and still want Jihad. He says the Afg. National Army burns the opium fields quite regularly and with pleasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.