The events in Afghanistan over the passed few weeks clearly demonstrate that America and her allies are running out of options to extricate themselves from a hazardous quagmire that threatens to end their occupation in disgrace. The situation has rapidly deteriorated and the recent NATO airstrike which killed scores of innocent civilians not only epitomizes the callous attitude of the crusaders, but sets a new benchmark for measuring West's sacred ideal of human rights when applied to the Muslims of Afghanistan let alone the Muslim world. The indiscriminate killing of civilians belittles the oft quoted mantra of winning hearts and minds; instead it has diminished West's credibility, appalled the nations of the world and more significantly emboldened the Afghan resistance.
This new dose of realism, has stirred some western politician and military leaders to intensely question the war in Afghanistan. Commenting on Gordon Brown's recent pledge to remain committed to Afghanistan, Lord Paddy Ashdown said, "Events are still moving against us in Afghanistan...This was the right war to fight but we have made catastrophic errors over the last five years and unless we can turn this thing round very quickly I think things will not get better, they are likely to get worse." Across the Atlantic, the call for a new Afghan strategy by General McChrystal�months after the Obama unveiled his much coveted Afpak strategy� underscores the confusion and mayhem amongst US military planners. After 8 years of ‘preventative war' and several strategies later, the mighty US military and its partner NATO is fatigued and nowhere near to overcoming a band of rag-tag fighters. Grandiose plans to use Afghanistan as a staging base to counter Russia, China and the resurgence of Islam seem to be wishful thinking at best.
Even the new strategy offers very little solace in the way of fresh battlefield thinking. Proposals such as dividing the Afghan resistance, tempting moderate Taleban into the political process, improving civilian infrastructure, increasing the Afghan army and boosting the number of US/NATO troops have been tried before and have only met failure. One only has to look at Iraq and realize that similar strategies pursued are fast unraveling�making a mockery of claims that the violence has subsided and the resistance defeated. Last year the Rand National Research Institute conducted a study of the 90 insurgencies that had taken place since 1945 and discovered that on average it takes 14 years to defeat insurgents once they are operational. Unless, the US and her allies are willing to substantially augment existing troop numbers and prepare their populations for a protracted counterinsurgency war, the prospects for stabilizing Afghanistan look woefully bleak. In Europe the momentum is galvanizing towards ending European involvement in fighting America's ‘preventative war'. Britain, France and Germany are pressing for an international conference to persuade the fickle Afghan government to take on more responsibility. Abdication of European responsibility will put further pressure on the already strained trans-Atlantic alliance.
The only military asset the West's has in its arsenal to reverse its fortunes in Afghanistan is the Pakistani regime. In the past, America exploited the Pakistani army, the country's rich resources and ingenuity of its people to help the Afghan Mujahiddeen defeat the Soviets. Later, the US collaborated with Pakistan's elite and created the Taleban to promote stability in Afghanistan and act as a conduit for the transportation of oil and gas from Central Asia. Today, America is conniving with the Pakistani leadership to confront the Afghan resistance and destroy it, even if this leads to the dissolution of Pakistan's territorial integrity. If it was not for Pakistan, America's preponderance in the region would have terminated long ago.
It is precisely this point that anti-war campaigners in the West and those nations that are incensed by America's unjust war on the poorest nation on earth should concentrate on. They should all lobby Pakistan to withdraw assistance to America and NATO. Any endeavor short of this trajectory is futile and will only prolong the war.
As for the Pakistani people they must realize that the present political and military leadership is stooped in cowardice and blinded by promises of illusionary riches to recognize Pakistan's immense strength and the opportunity before them to deliver a painful blow to end America's primacy. Instead, what is required during this Ramadan is for the people and the armed forces to take the reigns of power establish the Caliphate and expel the crusader forces from both countries. Those who doubt their ability to accomplish this feat should ponder on the poorly equipped Muslim army at Badr that overcome the mighty Quraish and ushered in a new age of Islamic rule.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Someone
said:
 |
It's shades of Vietnam as U.S. commanders beg for more troops to fight in Afghanistan Share Yesterday at 6:33am America has been here before It's shades of Vietnam as U.S. commanders beg for more troops to fight in Afghanistan By ERIC MARGOLIS Last Updated: 20th September 2009, 4:28am We should hang a huge neon sign over Afghanistan: "CAUTION: DEJA VU." Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce -- as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as U.S.-run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s. Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote. Meanwhile, American and NATO generals running the Afghan war amazingly warn they risk being beaten by Taliban tribesmen in spite of their 107,000 soldiers, B-1 heavy bombers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance. Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Canada won't even reveal how many billions it has spent. Each time the U.S. sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country. Now, U.S. commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more U.S. troops -- after President Barack Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style "mission creep." Ghost of Gen. William Westmoreland, rattle your chains. The director of U.S. national intelligence just revealed Washington spent $75 billion US last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people. Embarrassingly, the U.S. still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet offensive against major cities. This week, in a wildly overdue observation, U.S. military chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, we must rapidly build the Afghan army and police." 'Vietnamization' But the U.S. record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember "Vietnamization?" That was the Pentagon's effort to build a South Vietnamese army that could stand on its own, without U.S. air cover, supplies, and "advisers." In early 1975, it collapsed and ran. Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government (divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called "sepoys" in the British Indian Army and "askaris" in British East Africa. America's attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt western-installed government in Kabul. CIA's 74,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable. But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the U.S.-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and foreign stooges. These U.S.-paid troops also know they will face death when the U.S. and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan. The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called, "culturally ignorant." Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Mohammad Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane. The American command, deprived of men and resources by the Bush administration, only managed to cobble together an armed rabble of 80,000 Afghans. The Afghan army, like the post-Saddam Iraqi army, is led by white officers -- in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisers." Afghanistan keeps giving me deja vu back to the old British Empire, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, Drums, Lives of a Bengal Lancer, and Kim. The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. Many of their imperial subjects even admired and liked them. This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
abu Hamza
said:
 |
The the slave Musharraf has failed, the strategy to draw more attention to Afganistan has failed, The grand coalition of the western Kufr has failed, Afpak strategy has failed, the negotiation with taleban has failed.......now the option remains..........what is the option? OH! there is no option! Brown whispering to Obama.." the pakistan government is not doing enough. Obama: Yes Hilary: Yes! thats right! Monmohon Sing: Yes....Pakistan is the destabilizing factor. Obama: So, we want the pakistani 1000% ....what is his name (looking at Brown)? Brown: What is his name (looking at Hilary)? Hilary: I dont know? It must be The general in Pakistan......Sorry I can't say. Hoolbroke: Madam He is hadaram Zardari. Obama: All right. whoever he is Gardari is not doing well..........He must do more ....Gardari........... Hilary: Mr. President, He is Zardari not Gardari.... (by whispering) Obama: I dont care........... Hillary: Mr. President, In Pakistan...Gardari means a traitor.......betrayer with people...... Obama: So! From now on, I want This man....Zardari (is it?) to do public Gardari............no problem...........I have CIA tabelt to plant more specticualr attack in pakistan to win public support for us. Obama: So Pakistan must do more......must be interantionally commited to eridicate terrorism form pakistan soil.......We want the all of us to leave in peace ...in the peaceful world i have in my mind. Appluse.........Appluse...........Appluse [the international conference of UN General Assembly is over] Yes! this is the option that remains at the hand of the kufr. Now it is pakistan army who needs to decide, that will it kick the western forecs out of paksitan and afganistan or......continue to serve them as slave. Indeed Allah is witness of our action........and your action O my muslim brother in Paksitan army............ |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
IbnDarwish
said:
 |
I have read the entire article, and I took my time reading it because I didn't understand many words. I had to resort to using the dictionary!? However, the article is coherent and very informative! |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Adnan
said:
 |
It should be noted that the US was marred in an insurgency in Iraq and saw no way out of the predicament. The arrogant neocon’s completely underestimated the resilience of the Iraqi people and those that joined the insurgency. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Iran to have given the US a beating and turned Iraq into the new Vietnam. However when the Baker-Hamilten enquiry was proposing working with Syria and Iran for a regional solution to Iraq, the US was already working with Iran in South Iraq. Iraq through its proxy – the Islamic supreme council, which Iran created in the 1980’s, brought the major Shiah groups together and worked for a decentralisation solution to Iraq – exactly what the US was working for. This allowed the US to concentrate on the area’s around Baghdad as Northern Iraq was run by the Kurds who sided with the US even before the invasion began. Iran saved the US in Iraq. This is the same model the US is applying to Afghanistan. It brought Pakistan into the war – although under Musharraf Pakistan was with the US, this was restricted airspace and bases. It made Pakistan fight the war against the Taliban by bombing the borders and hence taking its war to Pakistan. More importantly the US is actually reliant on Pakistan to win the Afghan war. Without Pakistani supply lines and its army the US would get slaughtered as it was prior to the Pakistani army intervening. The Pakistani army needs to make a choice, will it be another Iran and help the enemy or will Pakistan live up to its destiny and expel the enemy. The Pakistani army should remember it played the role it is currently playing once before and the US left the region after its aims were achieved. Helping the enemy never materialises into anything good. |
|
report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|