US’s Afghan strategy based on false premise about Pakhtuns: By Jan Assakzai
(Frontier Post July 09)
| The US is not winning in Afghanistan: it is not only because of its flawed strategy but also because of its strategy being based on false premise. The US and NATO assume that Afghan Taliban are the reaction of Pakhtuns towards the US. Washington believes that it is the Taliban that represent the 15 million Pakhtuns in Afghanistan. From grand strategic point of view, the Taliban emerged in Afghanistan mainly as a result of the US abandonment of Afghanistan following the Soviet Union’s withdrawal. There were moderate Pakhtun leaders like Zahir Shah, Current Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his late father Ahad Karzai. In the south east was another Pakhtun leader Abdul Haq who was later allegedly killed by the Taliban. Pakistani intelligence agencies mounted a massive public relation campaigns for the Taliban by conducting seminars, publishing books, writing articles, and launching other publications. The pro-Taliban Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (F) was even prevented from establishing relations with the Afghan Taliban. Afghan watchers vividly recall that low level ISI officers like Col. Imam were more famous in Afghanistan than Pakistan. Following Sept 11 attacks, Gen Musharraf joined the US alliance yet continued to support the Taliban. The top leadership of the Taliban were allegedly allowed to establish Quetta Shora. Northern Balochistan served as sanctuary for the retreating Taliban where they took rest, recruited and resupplied. Why it is a misperception that Pakhtuns are supporting the Taliban, is because there is a sole monopoly of the Taliban who created terror and intimidation among the hearts of Pakhtuns population. After Sept 11, when the US and NATO came into Afghanistan they did not provide alternative socio-economic model to Pakhtuns. The efforts of the US and NATO in establishing Afghan military force were too late and too little to balance and then contain the Taliban. It is like arguing that Pakhtuns in FATA support al Qaeda, and the Taliban. But the truth is the opposite. Pakistan allowed the sole monopoly of religious groups and later militants to dominate the Pakhtuns while denying the moderate and democratic politicians and anti militant groups to operate in FATA for geo-political reasons. In the south of Afghanistan every tribal, political leader, activists even teachers who opposed the Taliban were killed. Over the past couple of weeks, there have been accusations by a British officer that Pakistani and Iranian made IEDs were used to kill British troops, according to the Daily Telegraph (July 2). But Pakistan denies all these allegations. Islamabad also denied initially that there was any al Qaeda operatives or Afghan Taliban in North Waziristan or Quetta was the base of the Taliban’s Shura. Unfortunately, the US and NATO also bought into these myths and ignored millions of Pakhtun men and women in Afghanistan who braved the threats of the Taliban and cast votes in every presidential elections. If they were the Taliban or the Taliban supporters or were the Taliban sympathisers then why they voted moderate leader like Hamid Karzai despite the boycott of the Taliban. The premise that the Taliban are the extension of the Pakhtuns is insult to those millions of Pakhtuns who voted for Karzai. The US counter insurgency experience in Vietnam also could not remove Laos and Cambodia as sanctuary from the equation providing opportunity to rebels to re-group and resupply. The FARC rebels in Colombia is another example. Unless, the US and NATO re-evaluate their assumptions about Pakhtuns in Afghanistan, any readjustment in their counter insurgency strategy may be an exercise in futility. janassakzai200@ |
Comments