February 23, 2007
Afghanistan and Nato’s two-tier alliance
No sooner had Tony Blair announced a withdrawal of some British troops from Iraq, then it emerged that more soldiers will be going to Afghanistan. This is not so much a scaling back of Britain’s military commitments overseas, as a re-deployment from one battlefront to another.
There is an unstated logic behind the British move. Iraq is going very badly - and the war may eventually be lost. Under these circumstances, it becomes all the more crucial that the western allies prevail in Afghanistan. Two defeats in the "war on terror" (or whatever you want to call it) would be catastrophic.
The British are not alone in sending re-enforcements to Afghanistan. The Americans have just announced a similar move, and the Australians are planning to send more troops too. Everyone is preparing for the much ballyhooed "spring offensive". The cliche in Nato circles is that - "We have to make sure that it is our offensive, not the Taliban’s." There is plenty of (justified) anxiety about the way the war is going. But all the same, in recent months, the military situation has improved a little. Things are precarious, but not remotely as bad as in Iraq.
But he decision to beef up troop levels in Afghanistan is creating new tensions within the western alliance. Senior American and British officials complain that Nato is becoming a "two tier alliance" - divided between those countries that will fight and those that will not. There is particular ire reserved for the Germans - who have steered well clear of the areas of Afghanistan that might actually involve real combat.
A top American is simultaneously understanding and exasperated, arguing that - "Most of these governments sold this war to their populations as ‘light peacekeeping’, but they have suddenly realised they are in a war and the war is on TV." But - the official argues - the future of Afghanistan and of Nato may depend on countries like Germany taking much more responsibility for real military operations. As another American official acidly notes - "Afghanistan was the good war, wasn’t it? This was the one they agreed with."
The trouble is that even if European elites agreed with the Afghan war, their populations were never quite as convinced. As Quentin Peel points out in today’s FT, tensions over troop deployments in Afghanistan are causing political problems all over Europe - and played a direct role in the fall of the Italian government.
A lot is now going to depend on what happens with the "spring offensive". If it goes well for Nato, then the political tensions over Afganistan may subside. If things go badly - and the call goes out for more troops - Afghanistan could be the cause of the next great split in the western alliance.
This is an article by a former Indian diplomat about how the US is using Afghanistan and Pakistan to sponsor terrorist attacks against Iran:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak02.html
Quote
The irony is that Afghanistan is being put to use as a launch pad by the US for sponsoring terrorism directed against Iran, when the raison d’etre of the US occupation of Afghanistan during the past five years has been for the stated purpose of fighting a “war on terrorism”.
Unquote
The conclusions are obvious:
1-) The US establishment has learned nothing and forgotten nothing about sponsoring terrorists and tyrants from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hossein. They are doing it today.
2-) Any Western democracies who support the US presence in Afghanistan are indeed lending a hand to state terrorism by the Neocon-Likudnik cabal in Washington.
All the Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Report this commentThere is no chance to win the war in afganistan. They have infinite human resources and infinite resolve. it will be low intensity conflict, war of attrition. It is not a war in “western” sense.it is a war of mentalities.they don’t need to sell it to voters. And besides they also have opportunity to re-deploy their “troops” from elswhere, including Iraq, don’t they?
Posted by: OM | February 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm | Report this commentDear OM,
Those near-infinite human resources are supplied from across the, extremely porous border, with Pakistan. Pakistan contains many millions of ethnic Pashtuns who are being “Talibanised”. Moreover, many in positions of power in the Pakistani military are sympathetic to the same ideology as the Taliban and, as you probably know, the Taliban were initially set up by the ISS which is the Pakistani military intelligence (and an affiliate of the US intelligence, at least for now.)
Considering the above, and the fact that the Pakistanis have the nuclear weapon, the nightmare scenario is a takeover of Pakistan by the Taliban-infested military. The real danger to the regional stability is from this issue and not from Iran which has no nuclear weapons and is not seeking one, except in the minds of those incompetent warmongers in Washington.
That Washington sees the Pakistani generals as an “allies in the war of terror” is another trademark misjudgement with disastrous consequences to follow.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 23rd, 2007 at 4:31 pm | Report this commentlet’s see about the spring offensive. My guess is that it will not go well. Those that refuse to study history, like our beloved Bush/Blair leaders, are equally doomed to suffer the consequences. No one has defeated the Afghans and no one is likely to either. Losing Aghanistan is no big deal, it is to be expected.
The real deal is whether the crazies in Washington launch an attack on Iran. I hope not, but if they do God help us. The whole of the Middle East could be drgged into the conflagration.
Posted by: oldasiahand | February 24th, 2007 at 6:24 am | Report this commentDear “Pacifist”, you sound more like a “Defeatist”, old chum. If you fail to show an interest in a constructive outcome then you’ll find that most people simply stop listening.
Posted by: thesode | February 26th, 2007 at 1:50 am | Report this commentDear thesode,
Kindly enlighten me as to your perception of what a constructive outcome is.
Would you say the setting up of permanent US bases in Afghanistan and Iraq is a constructive outcome for either of those two nations or the US citizens (ignoring, for this purpose, those crypto-Israelis who “advise” Bush)?
Would you say setting up bases to encourage terrorist activity in neighbouring states is a prudent policy?
How about fomenting civil wars, is that constructive?
The trouble is that people in charge in Washington (and B Liar who is tenuously in charge in London)stopped listening long ago and hence the mess they got the world into.
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 26th, 2007 at 10:28 am | Report this commentI agree with the contributor calling him/herself “P”, Feb 23rd.
The worst case scenario for the UK anyway is Musharaf being assasinated. (There have been two attempts already). His successor will come from either the fundamentalist oriented Army or the Taliban infiltrated intelligence service. Either way the next President of a nuclear armed Pakistan will be fundamentalist/Taliban. Watch out India, and I would anticipate warming relations with Iran. I wonder if Israel would bomb Iran under such circumstances?
al Qaeda has recently moved its power base and many supporters back into Pakistan (thus latest British reinforcements are operating in southern Afghanistan; Musharaf is supplying crucial intelligence about their whereabouts/activities. This too will stop over night if he were to be killed. The allies will then be “blind” for some time.
For the price of Musharaf’s head AQ/Taliban get a nuclear weapon, an alliance with Iran to disrupt allied activity in Iraq and by being nuclear, a neutralising of the domination of Israel and the US in the region.
Tim
Posted by: tim reilly | February 26th, 2007 at 6:56 pm | Report this commentDear Tim,
You are very correct that the surest way for Al Qaeda to achieve a nuclear capability is through a takeover of the Pakistani state and that alarming eventuality is a lot more feasible than most people realise.
However, I take issue with your statement that a fundamentalist Salafi / Wahabi / Al Qaeda-Taliban oriented government in Pakistan would be well-disposed towards Iran. In fact it is entirely the opposite. If you look at the relationship of the Afghan Taliban with Iran you will see that they almost went to war (btw, the US and Pakistan would have been on the side of the Taliban in such a conflict.)
The Iran-Taliban conflict was over many issues but, basically, Iran supported the Persian-speaking segment of the population and the Shia Hazara minority whereas the Taliban suppressed both. Moreover, the Taliban (and the Pakistanis right now) were fomenting ethnic unerst in Iranian Baluchistan.
The whole thing came to a head when the Taliban murdered nine Iranian diplomats in Mazar Sharif:
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9809/16/iran.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch
http://www.salamiran.org/events/Afghan_crisis/
As to the attitude of the Wahabi- Salafi types towards the Shia and the Iranians, you could read this letter by Abu Musab Zarqawi (the deceased head of AQ in Iraq) where he said fighting the Shia is more important than fighting the Americans:
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/31694.htm
(I could provide you with many fatwas from the courtier-clerics of the Saudi regime to the same effect)
Indeed, if you listened to the BBC Radio 4’s “Today Programme”, you would have heard the opinions of the Iranian researcher “Elahe Mohtasham” who, having just come back from Tehran and after meeting what she described as top officials, said that the authorities in Tehran are more worried about a nuclear armed Taliban-dominated Pakistan that considers the Shia to be non-Muslims and heretics, than they are about the possibility of an attack by Israel.
The US-UK-Nato’s alliance with Pakistan (and Saudi) is an unholy one that will blow in the faces of the international community and Iran will be the one country that is most likely to suffer from an aggressive, nuclear fundamentalist regime in Pakistan and their backers in the Arab part of the Persian Gulf.
Put another way, the pressure on Iran by the West, is entirely 1short-sided. The real enemy lurks within Condie Rice’s “axis of moderation”.
Best wishes,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 27th, 2007 at 10:48 am | Report this commentI recommend the enclosed article from the Asia Times web site. Nato’s “co-operation with Pakistan is a bit like trying to hold water in a sieve!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IC01Df03.html
Quote
Pakistan has made a deal to give logistical support to the Taliban in southwest Afghanistan. Islamabad desperately wants a foothold in the country and the Taliban need more muscle for their resistance.
Unquote
Also don’t miss the end of the article which claims that Pakistan is giving anti-aircraft technology to the Taliban.
You stupid, stupid Yanks!!
Best,
P
Posted by: Pacifist | February 28th, 2007 at 11:04 am | Report this commentPS…the anti-aircraft technology being given to the Taliban is AMERICAN.
Posted by: Pacifist | February 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am | Report this comment