Dear editor,

Assalamu Alaikum.Please publish it

Shah abdul Hannan
----- Original Message -----
From: R Ahmed
Subject: Patrick Seale - Wrong on Afghanistan

Wrong on Afghanistan
Patrick Seale                     Middle East Online 25/7/08


The history of Afghanistan's past occupiers, and a variety of current
experts on the region, speak against Obama's policy of a future American
- and, therefore, NATO - increase in military action in that country,
says Patrick Seale.


On his foreign travels this week, Barack Obama, the Democratic
presidential candidate, pledged to switch the focus of America's
military effort from Iraq to Afghanistan -- the "central front," in his
estimation, of the war on terror.


U.S. combat troops would be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months of his
taking office, but thousands more, he promised, would be sent to fight
in Afghanistan, and be ready to cross the border into Pakistan's tribal
areas to root out jihadist sanctuaries there.


This commitment -- and the explicit threat to expand the war -- is
almost certainly a grave mistake.


Costly in men and treasure, it is unlikely to be successful and
threatens to be hugely damaging not only to American interests in the
Muslim world and Central Asia, but also to Afghanistan itself, to
Pakistan and to Indo-Pakistan relations.


No doubt, Obama senses that the American public yearns for some sort of
victory against Al-Qaeda, the elusive terrorist group that dared strike
at America's heartland on 9/11. "Losing is not an option when it comes
to Al-Qaeda." he told CBS. He wants to look tough on security issues,
where his rival John McCain seems to have an edge.


But this is the old thinking from a view of doubtful validity --
accepted as gospel by many Western politicians -- that Western security
depends on locating the ageing Osama bin Laden in some remote mountain
fastness, and destroying him.


This is to mistake the nature of the threat to Western societies. Far
more dangerous than Al-Qaeda is the mass of angry tribesmen and
city-dwellers in the Afghan provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, in
Pakistan's Baluchistan, in the tribal agencies of North and South
Waziristan, in and around the teeming city of Peshawar, and even further
afield in neighbouring Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.


These men, and many of their co-religionaries in the wider Muslim world,
are angry because of America's "war on terror." For many of them, it has
meant the presence of an "infidel" army in Muslim lands, the vast
disruption of their traditional way of life, the killing of their wives
and children by U.S. air strikes, the flourishing of cruel and greedy
warlords in outlying Afghan areas, and the rule in Kabul of President
Hamid Karzai -- seen as a Western puppet presiding over a corrupt and
ineffective regime.


To pursue the battle against Al-Qaeda by military means is to awaken
these powerful tribal and Muslim resentments -- as well as to threaten
the already precarious stability of Pakistan, a Muslim nuclear power of
165 million people locked in a dangerous confrontation with India in
both Kashmir and Afghanistan.


Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former U.S. national security adviser, is a
rare American voice to say (in an interview with the Financial Times on
21 July) that "putting more troops into Afghanistan is not the entire
solution. we run the risk that our military presence will gradually turn
the Afghan population entirely against us."


Gérard Chaliand, a French counter-terrorist expert, goes further still.
"Victory is impossible in Afghanistan," he declared (in an interview
with Le Monde, 22 July) "Today, one must attempt to negotiate. There is
no other way. The insurgency is not led by Al-Qaeda on by foreign
fighters. It is a Pashtun matter [the majority tribe in Afghanistan,
with another 15 million members in Pakistan]. The Pashtuns are fighting
first of all for themselves."


Marc Sagemen, a leading American expert on Muslim extremism, argues in
his book, Leaderless Jihad, that free-lance radicals are more of a
threat to Western interests than Al-Qaeda itself which, he claims, has
already been "neutralised operationally."


Another important book which denounces America's obsession with
destroying Al-Qaeda is Ahmad Rashid's Descent into Chaos: How the War
Against Islamic Extremism is Being Lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and
Central Asia. He argues that the neo-con obsession with Al-Qaeda has
blinded the United States to the impact of the war on Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Kashmir, leading in turn to the powerful resurgence of the
Taliban on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.


It is surely the greatest folly for NATO to declare -- and seemingly to
believe -- that its survival as an alliance, and indeed its very raison
d'être, depends on victory in the Afghan theatre -- a war that is
virtually unwinnable.


Not the least of the problems is the underlying tension in Afghanistan
between India and Pakistan, greatly exacerbated by this month's suicide
car bomb outside the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 58 people.
India blamed the atrocity on Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence
directorate (ISI), a charge that Pakistan vigorously denies.


It needs to be said, however, that Pakistan's military establishment
views Afghanistan as its "strategic depth" in any conflict with India.
It is ready to employ strong-arm tactics to ensure that the Kabul
government tilts its way rather than India's.


With anti-American sentiment running high in Pakistan, the coalition
government of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has no wish to get
sucked into America's "war on terror." It is seeking to negotiate with
militant leaders in the tribal agencies, not make war on them, as
America is urging. Obama's pledge to order military strikes against
terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan is viewed in Islamabad as highly
irresponsible.


As is now widely recognized, Muslim radicals throughout the world have
been inflamed by the wanton destruction of Iraq, by the war in
Afghanistan, by Israel's cruel oppression of the Palestinians, and by
the whole notion of the "war on terror," seen as a war on Islam itself.
The way to defuse the threat the radicals pose is to change the
policies. To seek to destroy them by military force is to radicalize
them further.


Yet, in spite of the mass of evidence that force is not the way to tame
the swelling army of militants, both U.S. presidential contenders,
Barack Obama and John McCain, speak of "turning around Afghanistan" by
pouring in more troops. The sobering fact -- confirmed by the U.S.
military -- is that attacks by militants against the U.S.-led coalition
in Afghanistan have risen by 40 per cent this year, compared with 2007.


If not force, then what? Oxfam, the British humanitarian organization,
is not alone among NGOs in pleading for a change of focus. "Unless the
next American president. builds on the existing commitments to help lift
the Afghan people out of extreme poverty and protect civilians, it will
be impossible for the country to achieve lasting peace," Oxfam said in a
recent statement.


Afghanistan urgently needs an internationally-negotiated ceasefire
followed by the formation of a new government, including the Taliban. It
also needs a massive injection of development funds, distributed under
neutral UN auspices. And, just as a resolution of the Arab-Israeli
conflict is essential to end the violence in the Middle East, so a
resolution of the Indo-Pakistan quarrel over Kashmir is vital to the
health of the subcontinent.


These should be the priorities of the international community, rather
than sending more young men to a useless death in the mountains and
deserts of Afghanistan.



Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East, and the
author of The Struggle for Syria; also, Asad of Syria: The Struggle for
the Middle East; and Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire.


Copyright © 2008 Patrick Seale









--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Win £3000 to spend on whatever you want at Uni! Click here to WIN!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1569 - Release Date: 7/23/2008 1:31 
PM

Attachment: Patrick Seale - Wrong on Afghanistan.rtf
Description: MS-Word document

Reply via email to