A Trail of Failed Policies and Lost Battles

SAVE AS FAVORITE

VIEW FAVORITES

By Talha Mujaddidi (about the author) Page 1 of 4 page(s)

opednews.com Permalink

For OpEdNews: Talha Mujaddidi - Writer

Axis of Logic Tuesday, Oct 13, 2009

Obama brought the ‘AfPak', doctrine with him to the White House, ostensibly with the intention of securing Afghanistan, neutralizing Al-Qaeda, bringing peace to Afghanistan. Such urbane jargon did much to soothe the ears of the news viewers in the US but in reality all such slogans were as hollow as the dark hole that the US finds itself in in Afghanistan.

The Surge in Afghanistan, has all but failed. Over 75% of Afghanistan is in the hands of Taliban. Last Saturday, eight US troops were killed in Nuristan province when, hundreds of Taliban attacked US and Afghan troops by attacking their outpost from multiple locations. [1]

Today, CNN Europe reports many more civilian dead and wounded in this groteque war. The last few months have been deadly for US and NATO troops in Afghanistan, with an average of fixty or sixty five troops killed each month [2].

Just recently there were reports that Obama wants to review the AfPak policy and make some changes in strategy. It was then that Gen. McChrystal, commander of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan said he doesn't think a change in strategy will work in Afghanistan. The general told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula that is favoured by Vice Presidnt Joe Biden will not work and would lead to “Chaos-istan”. He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

Trouble at the Ranch

As readers must know by now, Gen. McChrystal has requested additional 40,000 troops be sent to Afghanistan to secure the country. McChrystal's announcement in London overrode the president and a flurry of news reports followed. According to Bruce Ackerman, an expert of constitutional Law at Yale, “As commanding general, McChrystal has no business in making such public pronouncements.” Obama's White House and Pentagon are not on the same page. It reminds us of the Cuban Missile crisis when the Pentagon and the Kennedy White House were at variance.

With so much outsourcing of military and Intelligence business to private military contractors, CIA, NSA and the Pentagon can bypass the White House and continue its wars and covert operations like JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) causing little trouble on the Capitol Hill. The solution to Afghanistan's mess is not more troops. The USSR had over 500,000 troops and the result was only more casualties in the Red Army, and the fall of the entire Politburo. But the hubris of the warmongers in Washington think it won't happen to them. They can do “better”.

The solution obvious to all is the complete and immediate withdrawal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan. But this is easier said than done. Why? First, it has to do with the intentions of the invader. The US strategic designs in Afghanistan were never about eliminating Taliban, rooting out Al-Qaeda or bringing Osama in, “dead or alive”. If it were such, why did the U.S. give material support to both, the Taliban and Al Queda until just before 9/11/01? When the US and Unocal were involved in dirty oil business with Taliban government why was CNN not talking about Al-Qaeda then? What was Taliban minister doing in the US, when Bin Laden was guest of Taliban in Afghanistan? Why didn't the US ask Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after African embassy bombings? [3]

This matrix of malfeasance can no longer be called "conspiracy theory". In a recent interview with CBS, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, admitted that the US created and supported both, Bin Laden and the Taliban. “It seemed like a great idea, back in the '80s to embolden and train and equip Taliban, mujahidin, jihadists against the Soviet Union, which had invaded Afghanistan. And with our help and with the Pakistani support-- this group-- including, at that time, Bin Laden, defeated the Soviet Union. Drove them out of Afghanistan, eventually.”
- Hillary Clinton, CBS News Oct 6th, Washington DC.

Afghanistan is a base from which the US has been working to destabilize the entire region from Iran to China, to Pakistan. At this time, the central target of AfPak policy is Pakistan. Gen. McChrystal is in charge of all the operations for the "AfPak" region. The upshot is that the US will target Pakistan if they can present information, factual or fabricated (remember Colin Powell's WMD lies at the UN that ushered the attack on Iraq), regarding the most useful villain of the twenty-first century; yeah you guessed it – information on Al-Qaeda and its sister Taliban. This was something political analysts began to predict in Pakistan as soon as Obama's "AfPak" policy was announced.

Now top US officials are threatening to attack the Pakistani city of Quetta, which is also the provincial headquarters of Baluchistan province of Pakistan, under the pretext of “Taliban”. Their subservient media does not explain the fact that the real Afghan Taliban have nothing to do with the TTP (i.e. those who call themselves "Taliban"). In this way, they can fool people in the west to think that there is a single, monolithic AfPak enemy - the "Taliban", thus justifying their war in both countries. When the Pakistan "Taliban" (TTP) perform a terrorist act, the U.S. can in this way, tie it in with their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and at the same time, blame Pakistan for supporting the "Taliban". Listen to CNN's use of the term, “Taliban” and you will understand. On the surface the US is saying that since our troops are located just the opposite side of the border with Quetta, they are coming under attack and that's why we need to target Quetta. The real reason is that Quetta is only the first of the list of main cities of Pakistan which the US wants to target.

The main intent here is to completely destabilize Pakistan, create an environment conducive to demand IAEA inspection, dismantle the Pakistani nuclear assets, cutting down the Pakistan army, finishing off the ISI and dismembering the country. [4] Ann Patterson and Quetta Shura The US ambassador to Pakistan Ann Patterson said earlier that the US would strike at Quetta in its own interest if Pakistan doesn't do anything about ‘Quetta Shura'. Quetta Shura is a new word that US jugglers have come up with in order to scare the Pakistan Government into more US submission. Who is Ann Patterson to threaten a major Pakistani city and Pakistani people in their own country? Imagine If the Pakistani Ambassador to the U.S. had done similar things while being in Washington. I am sure war drums would have echoed loud in DC. (By the way, one of the tragedies in this unfolding drama is that the current Pakistani Ambassador Hussain Haqqani elevates the Zionist agenda over a Pro-Pakistani agenda).

The Silent majority of Pakistanis completely deplore this move of the US Ambassador and calls for her removal from her post in Pakistan. Of course, the mainstream Pakistani media can't raise its voice since most of their funding comes from foreign donors, but nationalistic independent media (e.g. Pakistan Ka Khuda Hafiz - PKKH) has condemned this with full force. Slowly but surely mainstream media will have no choice but to wake up and acknowledge this blasphemy. [5]

While the Pakistani leadership does not have the courage to even issue a half-hearted statement over aggressive US policy towards Pakistan, the Pakistan Army Chief is clear in saying that no such attack on Quetta will be allowed. Here in Pakistan, we think we see the army gearing up for a final assault against CIA, Mossad and RAW-backed TTP in South Waziristan, where still pockets of TTP are hiding. Of course the problem is that the border is porous and supplies to TTP will come from the Afghan side. Just as happened during the Swat operation, this clearly shows that the real destabilization in Pakistan is taking place because of US occupation of Afghanistan.

The real Taliban (Afghan) represent all Pushtoon population of Afghanistan and Pakistan and during their rule there were no problems between the two countries. Any social problems that existed were strictly internal in nature and certainly not in the "national interests" of the United States or Europe. The Taliban government of Afghanistan respected Pakistan's national interests and neither the Pakistan army nor the ISI will permanently abandon them.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Talha is a Sr. Analyst of www.pakistankakhudahadiz.com (PKKH). Pakistan's first independedt media from Pakistan. Talha is wireless communication engineer by profession. Has studied, lived and worked in USA. Talha follows current affairs and history (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.