Iftekhar A. Khan
The US is surreptitiously seeking Saudi help to negotiate with the ‘good’ Taliban in Afghanistan. After eight years, $243 billion sunk (John Kerry’s estimate), thousands of Afghans massacred, and hundreds of US-led NATO troops killed, where does the war stand? What is the compelling need to change the strategy when Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda cohorts have been neither captured nor liquidated which was the sole objective to invade the sovereign state. Many among the ‘coalition of the willing’ battling in Afghanistan have either withdrawn their troops or given deadlines to pull out of the black hole. Despite this, the western governments have been deluding their populations into believing that the Taliban would target them, if their troops withdrew. It’s far from the truth. Afghans are an insular nation; they have always lived within their own boundaries and pursued their centuries old lifestyle. Neither do they interfere with their neighbours not to talk of targeting the West thousands of miles apart.
Having suffered hugely in men and taxpayers’ dollars, one of the options US now contemplates is to negotiate with the Taliban instead of sending more troops, as demanded by General Stanley McChrystal. Certainly, the dilemma of the military generals is that they don’t want to live with the stigma of defeat. And when they anticipate one coming, they always quote shortage of either troops or equipment. However, often there is no dearth of either; what is lacking is the willingness to take human losses – the body bags. United Kingdom has despatched only 500 more troops, while France has refused to send any. “Will not send one more soldier,” said French President Sarkozy, yet insisting that the war must go on. If the Afghan war is for a good cause, why not send more soldiers, Mr President? Zibignew Brensisky, former US national security adviser, has suggested hiring “native forces instead of deploying own troops.” Mind you, “native forces” to kill the natives – a ploy frequently employed by the white world.
While bullish military generals demand for more troops, their civilian counterparts advise against it. Even the hawkish Defence Secretary, Roberts Gates, is weighing the strategy of compromise with the Taliban. Conceivably, the US is on the verge of losing the war in Afghanistan, hence the furtive moves to negotiate with the ‘good’ Taliban. However, the problem is how to distinguish between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ Taliban, as both share the common goal of ridding their country of the occupation forces.
Anyway, when the US considers negotiating with the Taliban, it will exert immense pressure on us (Pakistan) against making peace agreements with the tribesmen in FATA. But what is good for the imperialist power may not be good for us. Undoubtedly, we are bearing the brunt of the war in the tribal areas as elucidated by an editorial published in this newspaper on November 14: “Destabilising of the country is progressing as designed by our external detractors and their local supporters which must be a matter of serious concern for the nation.” Who are the external detractors and who are their local supporters is the question that needs to be answered.
The US-led NATO forces might quit Afghanistan without facing long-term consequences because western powers neither share common boundaries nor religious ties with the Afghan people. But our situation is different. We share common heritage and religion with the tribesmen in FATA who have been part and parcel of the nation. What would be the point to change policy, which we will have to, after we had suffered death and destruction? Therefore, shift in policy as advised is the only way out.
The writer is a freelance columnist. Email:pinecity@gmail.com
theory of talking to “good” Taliban been debated since 2007, to reach an agreement engaging saudi Arabia and U.A.E as a third-party to get positive output under secret deal with Taliban. Initially Bush administration made efforts to get through this but mutual distrust hindered to culminate it. When obama sworn in as 44th president of U.S on 22nd january 2009. after that there was a definite paradigm shift in U.S policies regarding WAR ON TERROR. Five months later obama administration reviewed its policies with respect to WAR ON TERROR and this terminology replaced with “WAR AGAINST AL-QAAIDA”. and Taliban and AL-QAIDA network in Afghanistan considered a real threat to world peace.
Perspective of this whole story is that after 9/11 attacks on WTC towers U.S waged war against Taliban and Al-qaida network in Afghanistan under the slogan “WAR ON TERROR” with its allies and Pakistan been frontline state and most sacrificed than any of allies. Taliban surrended in a week so U.S proclaimed victory over taliban but perhaps U.S forgot to overcome the post-war shocks in Afghanistan. Amazing things happened when in the beginning of year 2002 U.S endured for lobbying to attack Iraq and blamed it for weapons of mass destruction and counter-terrorism centre shifted in Iraq but no sort of weapons of mass destruction found infact U.S faced tougher and hader resistance by Iraqi Army and then militants and country turned into dire straits. In persuit of peace in Iraq U.S ignored Afghanistan’s turmoil and It was year 2005 western media started to raise concerns about people of afghanistan and growing insurgency of taliban…………..!
to be continued……………………………………………!
Ultimately the imperialists will have to talk to the Taliban. Occupiers will declare a section of the Taliban as good and will begin to negotiate. All the foreign marauders want is passage to the central asian states to exploit energy reseves. Mullah Omar and Laden are merely a subterfuge to beguile the people at home.
Leave your response!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Recent Comments
Discuss Topics
Blog Comments
Search