US Failures in Afghanistan - what to do?

The biggest threat to US National Security is strategic miscalculation. In Afghanistan, the battle was an internally oriented conflict; but it had a confused and open ended definition to it. The US insisted in calling it COIN (counter Insurgency Operations) when it was not. The US method to madness unfolded from one dimension to another, ignoring geography, history, culture and ideology. In their enthusiasm the United States jumped from one plan to another in search of strategy as they lumbered on, never listened to anyone while they continued to do what they thought was the way forward. Ignorance and arrogance never go together. The result that with total air supremacy, against an enemy that had no tanks, artillery or air defence; the United States manged to put themselves into a losing situation. 

The only worthwhile ally, Pakistan, who could have helped the US win this conflict and bring stability to Afghanistan was cast aside and the alliance was broken through a successful man oeuvre of manipulation by an enemy that would have made Napoleon Bonaparte swell with pride. Breaking an alliance was Napoleon’s forte and was an obvious first step that an enemy would have taken in this case too. Who was this enemy, other than our very own? The US, leader of the world, commander of all Armies now cannot whine and blame others for their own failures, they must now behave the part and take responsibility of all that came to pass. It comes with the leadership role that the US loves to play. Well here are some very obvious things that need to be explained:

1. Political

• Removal of the Taliban government, which had a Pushtun leaning. The Pushtuns represent about 50 to 60 % of the Afghan population.
• Replacing them with a Northern Alliance biased government that represented less than 40% of the people.
• Introduced a universally unacceptable constitution, hoping that it would catch on. It did not.
• Tried a reconciliation process; top down approach.
• Tried integration; bottoms up approach.
• Wanted to negotiate with the Taliban but never considered speaking to the Pushtuns. The former believe in an ideological discourse, the latter a political one. Though most Taliban are Pushtun, but a strictly Pushtun dialogue would keep out the foreign spoilers.
• Assassinated any Taliban leader willing to talk through drone attacks.
• Insisted that Pakistan arrange the negotiation and when they did, destroyed their credibility by killing Taliban commanders in Pakistan who had been asked to come for the negotiation. 
• Setting up a ‘Unity Government’; it’s neither here or there and remains a confused, artificial structure that has no jurisdiction beyond the precincts of Kabul.
• Out of the three parties, the Taliban, the government and the US, the weakest is the government. That is why this government is probably the only known government to invite a foreign occupation, because it lacks in capacity, authority and legality.

2. Military

1. Based operations on garrisoning troops. Failed to secure lines of communication and relied on air rather ground.
2. Lost liberty of action and freedom of movement by not dominating spaces.
3. Continuity in such operations is necessary and not a choice. The US rotated troops every year and as such were never familiar with the terrain or the environment.
4. The limited understanding of the combat zone cannot be made up through ‘google maps’.
5. Operations of this kind are based on accurate intel. The US depended on Northern Alliance intel and interpreters. These people let their hatred for Pakistan take them away from any meaningful information. Salalah type operations were the product of misleading the US troops.
6. Raising an Army in a few years is unrealistic, it resulted in the highest rate of desertions and causalities. The NDS has still no capacity to stand ground regardless of the ‘feel good’ propaganda emanating from TOLO News. 
7. The two areas that needed US presence was ignored despite making promises, i.e. Nuristan/Kunar valley, where the US pulled out unilaterally and Paktia where the US always complained of cross border Haqqani battle groups moving into their area.
8. Not shutting down mobile networks along the Afghan Border despite requests to do so. SIMs are still functional while Pakistan had shut theirs down a while ago. Not blocking Thuriaya Communication which is based in Dubai and can easily be controlled.
9. Not supporting Pakistani Operation in North Waziristan with a US brigade during the surge to block the border though having promised to do so through four different commands. This caused the ‘revolving door’ effect. 
10. Suffering reverses by small tactical groups and blaming Pakistan instead of holding enquiries as to what went wrong. We have not heard a single case of tactical failure being attributed to incompetence or bad procedures. It’s as if no American can do wrong, though the US have lost this war and all because of the enemy!!! A really humorous conclusion.

3. Corruption

• Please read the SIGAR report. 
• A drug trade developed under the nose of ISAF that is now doing roaring business of anything up to $80 Billion annually. No one likes to quote these figures and everyone looks the other way as if it is inconsequential. Let it be clearly understood, the Taliban are being resourced by this drug money.
• Corruption in the government has caused the people to be highly critical of it.

4. Miscellaneous 

• The ISAF found it easier to justify their failures by blaming Pakistan. The lies were repeated and broadcasted so often that the US and their Coalition partners now believe it to be true.
• Losing about 50% of the space in Afghanistan where there is no government writ. The Taliban have signed $3Billion worth of contracts with the Chinese. Why would the Taliban need space in Pakistan when the resources and the area is available to them right there?
• Bringing in India, an enemy state into Afghanistan, and then expecting Pakistan to celebrate it.
• Resisting Pakistan’s attempt at border fencing when the charge against Pakistan was cross border movement.
• Insisting that Pakistan keep the millions of Afghan Refugees, whereas Pakistan has been continually complaining of the security problems because of it.
• Blaming Pakistan for the indigenous movement in Kashmir; singing India’s song!!
• Stating that the CPEC route was going through a disputed area, whereas, such a statement was highly uncalled for.
• Inserting ISIL into Afghanistan to challenge the Taliban. Bad idea. Russia has openly stated that they support the Taliban because of this and so do Iran. The US still remains conveniently quiet on the Russo Shura and the Iranian Shura.

5. Conclusions

• That Pakistan be coerced into fighting the war for the US and ‘do more’. It is clear that it is no longer about the War on Terror but more about containing China, disrupting CPEC and supporting India. Pakistan needs to be beaten into submission in phase 1.
• Pakistan cannot find it within itself to support the US. There is not a single reason, moral, political or military where Pakistan sees its national interest being served by cooperating with the US.
• It has now come full circle and Pakistan’s national interest can only be served by a comprehensive defeat of the US in Afghanistan if things do jot change for the better. There was a time when US success was in line with Pakistan's interest; not any more.
• That the US public are not aware of what all has happened or is happening and need to be informed of how the US have bungled here in Afghanistan.
• That a public joint enquiry is recommended where US and Pakistani military commanders be questioned and must be directed to explain their positions during their respective tenures. It is guaranteed to be very entertaining. 
• The people of the United States must restrain and contain their government in taking up a highly immoral position. If democracy has any substance to it, then a mechanism has to be put into place where the other side of the story is heard as well. Do the Americans have the courage to hear the truth?

6. Future

• If Pakistan stands its ground, the US and Pakistan can improve their relations though it will take a while that both would trust each other.
• The US can be part of CPEC rather than resist it. Becoming a strategic partner with China would make better sense now than becoming a competitor in a world/region where the US is a stranger in town.
• This could be of immense value to Afghanistan as well and they too could benefit from CPEC.
• Understandably India would not get what it is looking for, but then, should the US make a fool of itself in support of India?
• The US can only benefit fro  m the current crisis by being the leader it ought to be, having the moral courage to call a spade a spade, and the wisdom to promote stability rather than chaos.

About the Author: 

Lieutenant general Tariq Khan (Retired), Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military), winner of the Sword of Honour from Pakistan Military Academy, graduate of the prestigious National Defense University of Pakistan, has a long experience of fighting the War on Terror in the tribal areas of Pakistan and along the Pakistan- Afghanistan border. He has extensive interaction with the allied commanders employed in Afghanistan and working with top US military elite at CENTCOM. He has been one of the few Pakistan Army officers awarded with the Legion of Merit by the USA. He also has the honour of commanding one of the strike corps of Pakistan Army. He is a well read military analyst who often shares his view points, incisive and thought provoking analysis on national and international affairs. His views on international / national affairs can be read on Facebook

(The views expressed above are personal of the author and do not necessarily express the opinion of the admin of this blog)

Photo

If you like the Fire Within, follow us on Facebook

Read More

What must Pakistan do after Donald Trump's Tweet

The recent controversial tweet by the US president Trump against Pakistan seems a one man response as it seems that he stands alone while many others in the US tend to support Pakistan's stance and its countless efforts and sacrifices, both in human losses and material damage, to fight a war on terror that has never been its own. Pakistan has taken a heavy toll  after 'invasion' by US troops of Afghanistan as a collateral damage and effect. 

Now that the US has taken a very serious stance against Pakistan despite Pakistan have always been doing more and more as demanded by Pakistan and stopping all sorts of aid to Pakistan, Lieutenant General Tariq Khan (retired), a seasoned veteran who has had a front line experience of fighting the terrorists in the areas adjoining Afghanistan, speaks out what others in US think about Pakistan and what should Pakistan do to safeguard its interests:

Hillary Clinton said on record before the Congress that Pakistan had been let down by the US, David Petraeus, ex Director of the CIA said there was no evidence of Pakistan’s role in destabilizing Afghanistan, Chuck Hagel, while he was Secretary De fence stated, that India creates problems in Pakistan, Mattis the current Secretary defence, warned India to cool down in their support to the TTP. These were all heavy weights and there were others too in the US administration, military system and Congress who have tried to clear Pakistan’s name. It had no effect. Yet our own stalwarts are trying to find ways and means to ‘explain’ to the US government what our real position is. Others call it a ‘misunderstanding’. Such foolish scraping and fawning is probably unique to our very own alone. 

It must be clearly understood that the US is neither searching for a clarification nor is interested in seeing one. The US has decided to embark on a course of action and its decision cannot be sacrificed at the altar of the truth or reality on the ground. With a maniac as the US President, the ‘establishment’ is having a field day as they project personal agendas and spit in the face of the world. The insignificant Dana Rohrabacher and Ted Poe types find their relevance today in discovering a cause in the separation of Baluchistan. We are unreliable, we are two faced. Our stalwarts scream that we are not, our parliament is offended, our ministers are angry, everyone is disappointed and the country is shocked.

First of all, the Untied States has only done what it always does, abandon Pakistan when Pakistan is no longer needed. This should be no surprise to anyone and this fact should be clearly noted, underscored and advertised, only so that our future leaders can get the message and learn from history. Secondly, so far the United States has withdrawn monetary assistance; how can we demand that they support us financially. That is their prerogative and if they have decided to stop supporting us, why are we crying hoarse, it is neither our right nor are we employed by them. Live with it.

Now we come to this nonsense that this was not our war and that we fought for the United States. Please take into cognizance, I have been in combat the longest and during that time we cleared 35,000 sq kms out of 48,000 sq kms. We did not do this for the United States, the Indus Highway was closed, the Peshawar Airport was shut down, the KP Government was about to shift to Abbottabad, the businesses in Peshawar were moving out, our Agencies were no go, Bajaur had an Afghan flag and Afghan currency. We made deals and negotiated ourselves into every corner hoping that it would bring peace. We even disgracefully surrendered the people of Swat to Sufi Muhammad in the hope that we could ‘give peace a chance’. I saw people then shivering and quivering when militants entered Margalla Hills. 

With short memories we forget the APS carnage, we forget the attacks on our airbases and the naval Base. We ignore the attack on GHQ, we look the other way as the airport in Karachi was hit. We then have been saying that this was all because of joining the US war in Afghanistan and was the product of our policies? We cannot be more wrong, how does one explain the 2000 sectarian deaths in Pakistan before 9/11? Besides, despite being members of the United Nations and having signed the unanimous UN Resolution 1377 of 12th November 2001 which should be read by all, ours was the only Army that had no one under US Command and we never operated beyond our own territory. What do these critics want that Pakistan should have fought on behalf of the Taliban?

After all, what were the demands of the Pakistan Government to all foreigners in Pakistani territory? It was to register with the authorities, settle into designated areas and disarm or then report to centers for repatriation to their respective countries. Was this unfair? Not only did they refuse but insisted on waging war from Pakistani territory when the State had decided not to engage in Afghanistan. They said it was their right to fight a Jihad in Afghanistan. The whole story seems upside down. It’s these foreigners and our very own sold out militants who connived together for pelf and place that brought the war to Pakistan. Now we hypocritically say we have sacrificed 70,000 lives; did we do it for the United States? No, these lives were lost in the battle for Pakistan, as we secured our country against a Raw initiated insurgency and a CIA supported terrorism. We must not belittle our achievements which were the highest in the world just to win a cheap and irrelevant argument. We secured 3500 Kms of Lines of Communications, we established the writ of the government, we have cleared our areas of all militants and we did this for Pakistan and not the United States.

Our falling out with the United States is a function of a failed foreign policy. This was recognized time and again. A government without a foreign minister for four years allowed an Indian walk-over at the Capitol Hill. This has to be acknowledged and cannot be just brushed aside. Our PM, then, claimed he was the Foreign Minister, well then that’s where the buck stops. We had Haqqani as our ambassador, we had Fatmi as our advisor!!! We are further compromised because of the debt we have incurred, the money that we so wantonly stole and distributed amongst relatives and friends; that the very foundations of the State have been shaken up. The PM refused to even mention Kulbashan at the UN, Jindal turns up without a visa, Modi is invited to the PM’s house for a wedding. Well done!! Our leader entertains the enemies of the State even when they threaten to cut us into four pieces. This all then leads to the Dawn Leaks; an attempt to declare the Pakistan Army as a Terrorist Organization. Having gone through all this we are shocked when the US now withholds assistance!!!

Nowadays everyone (including me) seems to have some solution to the crisis we are going through. The diplomatic scene is out since we have nothing to offer and have exhausted any space we have had thanks to this highly incompetent government. Talking our way through in search of peace is exactly like surrendering to Sufi Muhammad in Swat. Nothing to talk about!! We need to first acquire the space for any meaningful talks. Just simply saying ‘let’s negotiate’, makes no sense and is not that easy. We are suffering the consequences of huge capacity issues in our government.

It is obvious that the US must be in the complete know that it is losing the war in Afghanistan on account of its own limited capacity and incompetence and that Pakistan is the least of the causes. Despite knowing this, it continually blames Pakistan and that serves two purposes, first, it creates a credible justification for US failure and secondly it provides the US a casus-bellie to prosecute Pakistan. It is important to understand as to why the US would want to bring pressure on to Pakistan and what are its objectives:
Regional Objectives:

• Contain Chinese economic growth.
• Challenge Russian military relevance.
• Observe Iran
• Retain regional influence through physical presence.
• Setup and support India as a proxy.
• Local Objectives. Since Pakistan is an obstacle because of CPEC and that it contains Indian influence, Pakistan has to be dealt with effectively first:
• Create conditions to denuclearize Pakistan.
• Scuttle the CPEC through Indian subversion in Baluchistan and GB.
• Reward India by allowing free license in Kashmir.
• Destabilize FATA and encourage Afghan claims using TTP and Daesh.

Conduct. To use incremental pressure, testing for effects.

• Impact on Pakistan’s economic vulnerability by withdrawing financial support and influencing international institutions for calling in the debt.
• Hoping the government would be willing to trade: financial relief for nuclear capping.
• Declare Pakistan Army a terrorist group and extend international travel bans on its personal.
• May step up drones attacks and encourage India to undertake ‘surgical strikes’ which India has already been claiming it has been doing. India thus already has a tacit approval of everyone to undertake such operations.
• Finding no credible response the US may extend bombing campaigns into settled areas with intent to create discord, lack of government writ and disharmony.
• Having created the chaos and instability, may undertake boots on ground operations and encourage separatist movements in Baluchistan and GB.

Pakistan’s responses. The first and foremost that people generally recommend is appeasement and an abject surrender. I may even go along with it, if it could save the State. It will not. The US and India will not be satisfied without attaining the objectives listed above. Thus diplomacy, talking etc. may sound good in a drawing room discussion, may prove that some of us more intellectual than the rest, but the fact of the matter is, that they will not resolve anything. Such peaceful gestures can only come after having created the grounds for diplomacy. Recommended response:

Immediate

• Reduce US presence in the country to a skeleton staff at the embassy.
• Kick out all US based NGOs.
• Renegotiate GLOCs (ground access to Afghanistan)

Concurrent

• Inform the Security Council that India by its own self-confessed statements has committed an act of war and that Pakistan retains the right to respond at a time and place of its own choosing.
• If India resorts to any more verbal surgical strikes, to physically respond in areas of Pathankot, Madhupur, Jammu etc.
• Also bring to the Security Council’s notice that US has threatened Pakistan militarily with unilateral action and that Pakistan has the right to self-defence.
• Inform Afghanistan that any act of hostility would trigger a response at Jalalabad, Kandahar, Kabul and Bagram.

Future

• Find common interest with Iran.
• Speed up Russo-Pak military collaboration.
• Enhance Chinese involvement along Kashmir.
• Begin an aggressive Kashmir campaign.
• Stock up on fuel and food starting now.
• Work out a debt retirement scheme through a credible and honest programme involving the people of Pakistan.
• Begin a proper accountability to bring closure to Memo gate, Dawn leaks, Kargil operations, Abbottabad Commission, theft and corruption.
• Structure a proper lobby team to build the country’s relevance and image

The US may not be ready for a physical fight beyond a certain escalation. Measured confrontation may force the US to step back. I used the term incremental pressure above. It was deliberate. At every stage where the US is not challenged, the pressure will shift and increase, step by step. By putting out our best foot we may be able to bring them to the table for talks which is what everyone wants. Talks are only done when there is mutual respect. No one respects a loser. For now its brinkmanship and we need to see who is going to blink first. 

If the US is willing to come to some understanding we can offer them assistance in an honourable withdrawal, a role in the CPEC, business opportunities in the country. It is not necessary to fight the US if it can be helped. However, acquiescing is not the answer and we must not sell our selves short as we usually do. We have to go through some difficult times but that is what nations are made up of; to stand up for themselves, their sovereignty and their independence. I am convinced if we stand up to the US our relations can improve. 

On the other hand, there is a lot of cleaning up to do at home as well, without which we can never be sovereign nation and first and foremost is to remove all maulvi influence. They shall never let this country be independent, self-sustaining and respectable. Religion has no place in the affairs of States and the sooner we realise this the quicker we shall be on the way to redemption. Catering to a belligerent but semi educated, opinionated preacher will always bring us into an ideological conflict not only amongst ourselves but with everyone around us. We shall be fighting a never ending Jihad. The best service we can do for Islam is to follow it in our individual sense and not pass judgments on others. Till religiosity is not removed from our political, administrative and diplomatic policies we shall always be hostage to the maulvi who has brought us to where we are.

About the Author: 

Lieutenant general Tariq Khan (Retired), Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military), winner of the Sword of Honour from Pakistan Military Academy, graduate of the prestigious National Defense University of Pakistan, has a long experience of fighting the War on Terror in the tribal areas of Pakistan and along the Pakistan- Afghanistan border. He has extensive interaction with the allied commanders employed in Afghanistan and working with top US military elite at CENTCOM. He has been one of the few Pakistan Army officers awarded with the Legion of Merit by the USA. He also has the honour of commanding one of the strike corps of Pakistan Army. He is a well read military analyst who often shares his view points, incisive and thought provoking analysis on national and international affairs. His views on international / national affairs can be read on Facebook

(The views expressed above are personal of the author and do not necessarily express the opinion of the admin of this blog)
Photo

If you like the Fire Within, follow us on Facebook

Read More

USA's Afghan Exit Strategy and Pakistan: Another Viewpoint

America thinks Pakistan should do more. They want to ‘win’ the war as Trump has said. ‘Winning’ now could be as little as a ‘graceful exit’ or as much as ‘killing all the Taliban’. We don’t know what the American strategy is and how the end state is envisioned. We can at best hypothesize as following: 

• Option 1 - US wins the peace and exits, 
• Option 2 - US wins the peace but does not exit, 
• Option 3 – the US does not win the peace by design. 

We also don’t know what drives US strategy; their obsession in containing China, their opposition to CPEC or their enthusiasm in promoting India as their proxy or even a combination of all three. We further do not know how regional initiatives affect the US presence in Afghanistan; the Russian support for the Taliban, the Chinese securing mining rights from the Taliban or the Iranian assistance to the Taliban.

With so many unknowns, what do we actually know? First that the Taliban are in control of 40 % of the territory. Second, they now have a roaring global drug trade that is turning over a $70 Billion independent economy. The Taliban are also securing international mining contracts independent of the Afghan Government in areas under their control. The combination of these ‘facts’ precludes any logical reason why the Taliban would need safe havens in Pakistan. We also know that if there was any movement into Afghanistan it have to be by movement across the border, but Afghanistan does not recognize the border and the US does not support its demarcation and fencing. We further know that the Afghan refugees in Pakistan compound the problem and remain a constant source of acrimony where the international community is reluctant to move them back to their country and Afghanistan is averse to accommodate them. It is also very clear that the so called US surge numerically does not commensurate with a defined objective of winning the war against the Taliban.

Putting the knowns and unknowns together, it seems that the US will persecute the Taliban through punitive stand-off weapon systems, punishing them enough to come to the table but not enough to annihilate them. The negotiation thereon may either lead to abandoning the unity government and striking a deal with the Taliban or then establishing an environment of indefinite end-state but with controlled instability: regulated and contained, justifying a US presence. However, this presupposes that the US is in a position to manage the tempo of the conflict in Afghanistan and that does not appear to be have any currency at present. US presence with the present troop strength necessitates assistance from the Indians and maybe some from NATO and more of such initiatives are likely to be seen in the coming days. As such, Afghanistan will continue to languish in turmoil in the near future and may even become a battle ground for a proxy war between a Russo-Persian alliance against the Indo-US alliance. This would mean a simmering conflict between Taliban supported by the former against Daesh/ISIL supported by the latter.

The containment of China shall become a major objective in such a scenario. To arrive at such an objective, scuttling CPEC will have intermediary gains for the US and would be one objective of the many more envisaged. Here India would be extended a regional status to challenge China but could be delegated a major role in disrupting the CPEC project. India would welcome such a role and would see it as an opportunity to find a resolution to its Kashmir problems on the one hand and cut Pakistan to size on the other. However, India would be wary of any military role in light of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence and Pakistan’s nuclear capacity would have to be neutralized before embarking on such a task by the Indians. The possibility of capping and dismantling Pakistan’s nuclear capability could be arrived easiest through stripping Pakistan of any economic sovereignty and then through an internal political process in conflict with the security apparatus of the country, leading to a denuclearized Pakistan as an outcome of Pakistan’s own internal fissures and instability. The bogey of extremists over-running a nuclear facility as well as proliferations charges would add to the arguments that Pakistan is a danger to the world. Thus a political decision to give up the nuclear capability would not only hold a promise of more financial assistance but the world would accolade the ‘reasonableness’ of Pakistan’s democratic process, praising the government’s courage in standing up to the rogue Establishment. However, though there has been some success in entrapping Pakistan into an economic debt-cycle, yet, the internal political conflict never paid the dividends that were envisaged.

Pakistan managed to survive, maintain its cohesion and till now protect its nuclear capability. Having made no gains in attacking Pakistan’s nuclear capacity by facilitating and encouraging an internal conflict between the political elements and the Establishment (See Kerry Lugar Bill), the US now may prefer taking the kinetic route using a military option. Here a two sided combined initiative by the US and India may seem to be the most feasible way forward. The articulation of such an operation would be first, intelligence gathering followed by military strikes. A successful operation on these lines would facilitate Indian aggression in the Northern Areas, disrupting the CPEC. However, the lure of CPEC would keep US interests alive in the region and what may be denied to China could be undertaken by the US. This would not be possible in an environment where Pakistan remains on the map as it is.

For the US to gain access to Gwader and for India, its partner in crime, to be facilitated as a regional power, Baluchistan would have to be separated. The Free Baluchistan Movement as we are now witnessing as an international advertisement campaign and the sudden surfacing of the usual human rights groups let loose to defame and malign Pakistan, is a no brainer. Attention is drawn to the continued, unprecedented anti Pakistan campaign by US Senators such as Dana Rohrabacher and Ted Poe. Yet, a free Baluchistan would not be enough to allow connectivity with the Central Asian Republics and thus KP would have to be destabilised enough as well to demand a separate status. This may explain the reluctance of accepting a defined border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both by the US as well as Afghanistan, though the general complaint against Pakistan focuses on cross border movement.

Such an endeavour was on the maps for a while. Pakistan was to be the first in the series of the Arab Spring turmoil and implosion. It did not work and Pakistan was able to pull back from the edge of the abyss while the rest of the world around it was smashed to pieces. Since the US is not going to accept failure easily, the US will try and wrest back the initiative through other means. This shall be through an organized attempt at destabilizing Pakistan through regulated terrorist activity directed at Baluchistan, KP and GB. And having managed a cause and a reason, the US will use the confusion and fluidity of the environment to attempt dismantling Pakistan’s nuclear capacity in close harmony with India through the military option. The casus-belie for undertaking military operations on Pakistani soil would be accusations of militant safe havens in Pakistan used against US forces in Afghanistan and that Pakistan facilitates terror in India, etc. etc. US accusations come in the wake of Chuck Hagel’s statement, the ex-secretary Defense, stating that India works at creating trouble in Pakistan, General Petrous, ex-director of the CIA, who stated publicly that there was no evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in destabilizing Afghanistan, Hillary Clinton, who made a congressional statement that the US had let down Pakistan and now even General Mattis, the sitting secretary defence, warning India to limit its support to the TTP. With such heavy weights making public announcements in favour of Pakistan or supporting its position, it is clearly indicative that Pakistan is not being blamed because its story has not been heard or understood but because Pakistan has to be cut to size by design. The US does not want to hear any justifications or explanations, it only wants to pursue whatever it needs to in its national interest and woe to anyone in its way. Thus demands for Pakistan to do more and to be beaten into submission to do what it is asked of.

Now in retrospect, The US presence in Afghanistan has had varying implications for Pakistan over the years. In the beginning, when Pakistan had the most-allied non-NATO status, a US victory in Afghanistan and a stable Afghanistan was in Pakistan’s interest. Pakistan did whatever it could to assist. However, a US success did not come about, instead a civil war came about with the Taliban winning back 40% of the territory. It ought to be kept in mind that it is always the weaker group that invites foreign occupation and here it is obvious that the weaker group is no other than the Afghan Government itself. In light of the developing situation, a US withdrawal from Afghanistan would have seen the end of the artificial unity government that was artificially propped up. Though that would have ushered in a period of instability, it would have eventually tapered off into a stable Afghanistan, albeit, not in keeping with international political values. Thus, the situation evolved so that now a US withdrawal from Afghanistan was in Pakistan’s interest. Since that too did not happen, the US, in order to retain some semblance of control, resorted to giving India a larger role in Afghanistan, introduced Daesh to challenge the Taliban, criticized and began to resist CPEC to contain China. Now, under these new present circumstances and the new threats created and presented by the US to Pakistan, as well as the instability the US is promoting within the region, it is very obvious that it is now in Pakistan’s interest to see the US defeated in Afghanistan - totally and unambiguously. As such if the US must pursue its own interest at all costs, how can one deny Pakistan or for that matter any other country, doing the same for its own survival? This will remain a moot point smothered under the inequality of nations, some stronger than others. The changing strategic paradigm in the Afghan Conflict has been mainly driven by an evolving US-Pakistan relationship. As this relationship became not only increasingly irrelevant but at cross purposes, Pakistani orientation became more Chinese specific while the US’s more India specific, creating competing spectrum. How does the US expect that Pakistan should now assist them in Afghanistan in propping up an artificial government that is working against the interests of Pakistan, help them in allowing an enemy State to establish itself in territories that are not strategically contiguous to them, and to permit, the NDS to accommodate the TTP in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan who continually attack Pakistan? In light of this reality, US expectations of Pakistan are not only highly exaggerated but very unrealistic.

Yet, in Pakistan’s interest, Pakistan’s best option is to try and pull the US back into a meaningful US-Pak relationship that is mutually relevant by integrating the US into the CPEC. It would be a huge diplomatic coup if it could. It would not only destroy a Chinese monopoly but would limit India’s influence from a potentially harmful alliance. Such a possibility is remote and not likely unless the US finds itself in a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which at this moment in time appears to be a credible possibility. The other things that Pakistan must do concurrently, is to remain very vigilant against a possible spate of terrorist attacks in the near future, containing them and limiting their effect so that the country remains cohesive and the will and moral of the nation remains intact. Pakistan must also work to remain stable and ensure that there are no further serious political upheavals, nor should players within the country be allowed to play games for vested interests. Pakistan must also build on its relationship with Russia, China and Turkey as much as it can. Getting the Gulf States to show some solidarity may be difficult but Pakistan must work on this too. 

Last of all whereas, it is clear that Pakistan is no position to challenge the US military might, yet it does have the capability to cause serious pain in a response to any aggression against it. This must be clear to all: Afghanistan, India and the US. Avoiding conflict is never the same as deterring it and requires different set of preparations. Pakistan must display a posture where it does not only clearly demonstrate its intent but also its capability and capacity.

About the Author: 

Lieutenant general Tariq Khan (Retired), Hilal-i-Imtiaz (Military), winner of the Sword of Honour from Pakistan Military Academy and is a graduate of the prestigious National Defense University of Pakistan and has a long experience of fighting the War on Terror in the tribal areas of Pakistan and along the Pakistan- Afghanistan border. He has extensive interaction with the allied commanders employed in Afghanistan and working with top  military elite at CENTCOM. He has been one of the few Pakistan Army officers awarded with the Legion of Merit by the USA. He also has the honour of commanding one of the strike corps of Pakistan Army. He is a well read military analyst who often shares his view points, incisive and thought provoking analysis on national and international affairs. His views on international / national affairs can be read on Facebook

(The views expressed above are personal of the author and do not necessarily express the opinion of the admin of this blog)

Photo Source

If you like the Fire Within, follow us on Facebook

Read More

Pakistan-US Relations: An open letter to the US Congress

The US - Pakistan relations have never been easy and have remained tense most of the time since the creation of Pakistan. The changing geo-political situation around Pakistan has been the major contributing factor. But despite Pakistan's efforts to side with the US and try its best to continue to be its best ally, the US has always views its relations with Pakistan with uneasiness.

While Pakistan sided with US and was the major US partner to defeat the Russians when the invaded Afghanistan in the 1980, Pakistan was abandoned soon after the Russians left.  The Americans again returned to Pakistan for help when they invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, but soon suspicion returned and as of today, the US Congress is mouthful of mistrust and showing visible signs of breaking away from Pakistan yet again.

Recently the US congress was seen spewing venom against Pakistan and asking to declare Pakistan as an enemy state. The comments seem to portray the bitterness in US about Pakistan's closing in to China and opening a corridor of friendship from deep seaport of Gwader on the Arabian Sea to China, the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Lieutenant General Tariq Khan, a well read and respected Pakistan army retired officer, who has been awarded the coveted Legion of Merit by the US for his services to bridge gap between US and Pakistan, has written an open letter to the US Congress, airing his very candid and bold views about the US policies and stance against Pakistan in his Facebook page. The letter is herein shared for general reading and showing his perspective:

To the US Congress:

I was amazed to hear your one sided debate where your Congressmen were foaming at the mouth to declare Pakistan an enemy state. They sounded so committed that one could be forgiven for believing that they meant it and knew what they were talking about. Most of the speakers, heavily sponsored by India would not be able to find Pakistan on a map let alone make an intelligent comment on the regional environment. I shall not stoop to respond to the meaningless charge-sheet bandied about by this anti Pakistani lobby, a bunch of stooges who not only do a great disservice to democracy and the US image but are responsible for the very foreign policy blunders the US is suffering the consequences of today. So here are some points that need to be understood, considered and explained:

1. The US and it's Coalition partners have lost the war in Afghanistan. It will be recognised as one of the greatest military defeats in history when all the dust and debris settles down.

2. This loss has affected Pakistan the most. Barring the political rhetoric we hear about the situation and viewing it more from a State's perspective, only a fool would see a benefit for Pakistan in this US defeat.

3. It is natural for those responsible for this disaster to invent reasons for their failing and look for an appropriate whipping boy. That the narrative that needs to be manufactured for both is a product of this military defeat.

4. That India is exploiting the situation and working herself into a position where She can promote the US agenda and defame Pakistan is a no-brainer.

5. That Pakistan has made mistakes and bad choices is not contested but to define these decisions as State Policy intended to come in the way of a US victory is not only childish but ludicrous.

6. That the US has a bad precedence of letting down its allies is very well recorded and documented in history. Some US-PAK experiences illustrating this are: The Somalia case where after entering with all the pomp and panoply the US ran unilaterally and returned home. The US left Pakistan on the beaches and withdrew under its protection. That Hollywood was encouraged to screen, 'Black Hawk Down', depicting Pakistani soldiers as cowards whereas it was a Pakistani squadron of 19 lancers that fought it's way in and rescued the besieged Americans. This small truth was conveniently forgotten in making up of the narrative. Also, how after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan the US abandoned Pakistan with 3 million refugees, drugs and heavily armed Mujahidin Camps. One of the major causes of militancy all along the border today and one that apparently plagues the US security spectrum.

7. If there is an iota of truth where some of your Congressmen bravely shoot their mouth off in a one-sided harangue, they should look forward to a public debate on the matter also. I am sure we can produce someone to give them a run for their money if they are up to it. Is the US willing to hold a public enquiry to determine the causes of the American failure in Afghanistan? It will probably be a better road to take than to conveniently blame every tactical and operational defeat on Pakistan.

8. Can anyone amongst the US Congress explain the following:

- The US Strategy in Afghanistan? 

- The desired End State?

- The political and military objectives?

- The causes of a military defeat?

- The reasons for a political failure? 

- Was Pakistan your undoing?

9. I have personally been involved in US-Pak operations for years along this border and I know we could have resolved this conflict easily. However, we were played and influenced by factors, people and institutions that did not want such a resolution. Pakistan was not one of these but do the US and it's people even want to hear Pakistan's story? Do they have the stomach to grapple with reality? Can truth be given a chance?

10. For Pakistan: we have had enough. Let's move on. Being a US ally over the years has been a painful experience. We have now been declared an enemy state. 

Let our future relations with the US be governed by this fact first and foremost. 

In other words when we speak to the US again on any and every occasion, remember you are speaking to the enemy.

Answering to the questions on his post, the general elaborates his view point as under:

1. We must revisit our policies but for now sanctions or otherwise let's just breakaway. The fallout will effect every Pakistani and I would like to hear what these people have to say then? It may bring reality to the political rhetoric which would be a good thing. On the other hand, we need to confront these sell-out Congressmen on their own turf. This challenge must be widely publicized and repeated everywhere.

2. The USA is like a large river where the people on the banks benefit as long as the river stays the course. The moment the river changes course it leaves those people in the middle of a desert. Rivers do change course just as national interests and such changes are natural, normal and predictable. It's only us who think relationships are governed by moral values, honour, commitment and trust. Today, the US is a stranger in the region having lost the war in Afghanistan and has aligned itself with India, Afghanistan and Iran in a very overt manouevre which cannot escape anyone's attention. It is an attempt to reassert Herself and establish relevance. It is not working for them so far. 

3. Those who wish to remain in the US camp today must understand that it would involve compromising on CPEC, developing a friendly relationship with India as a product of Indian demands, assisting the US in containing the Chinese and giving up on the strategic deterrence, i.e. nukes. Today, without these compromises there is no question of bettering relations with the US even if we bend over backwards, hire a the best PR team and lobby on every hill outside the White House. The alternative is, get aggressive with Afghanistan, put India under moral and physical pressure, ignore Iran and expand the nuclear capacity in terms of range and second strike. Announce these as policy measures and hope that the world in general and the US in particular try and wean us away from possible confrontation and conflict. This may lead to a better relationship or even total annihilation, however, in my unqualified opinion, it is a calculated risk that will lead to a better relationship. Beggars cannot be choosers but destiny can be shaped so that a beggar does not remain a beggar. We feel that our foreign policy must be about pleasing everyone and disagreeing with no one. We also feel that dialogue and diplomatic initiatives can take off from a position of weakness. We think we can talk ourselves out of a difficult situation. 

We are always in search of something for nothing. We are never ready to show our strength and resolve.

Read more about Lieutenant General Tariq Khan at Wikipedia

Pak-US flags: Photo Credit

If you like the Fire Within, follow us on Facebook

Read More