America’s objectives in Afghanistan post 2014
Asif Haroon Raja
No sooner Barack Obama sat in the seat of president he started to growl at Pakistan. He stated that US forces would carry out unilateral action inside FATA whenever actionable intelligence was available. Propaganda war was stepped up to malign Pakistan’s institutions and drone war accelerated to fuel terrorism. Besides the US media and think tanks, every second US official used foul language against Pakistan. The US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Washington had to consider military action against Pakistan. Max Boot suggested that the US should adopt a tough approach towards ISI and should treat it the way Iran’s Quds Force in Iraq was treated. Apart from biannual evaluation 138-page report 2011 of Pentagon in which safe havens of Taliban militants in Pakistan were described as greatest threat to a military success in Afghanistan, BBC documentary titled ‘Secret Pakistan’ was another shoddy attempt to malign ISI. Interviews of some unknown Taliban were broadcasted who claimed that ISI provides arms and training to their fighters. BBC which has a heavy intake of Indians and is controlled by Jews is notorious for airing anti-Pakistan propaganda and excels in fabrications. After Mike Mullen’s diatribe against Pakistan describing HN as the veritable arm of ISI, Leon Panetta became the leading basher of Pakistan duly supported by Hillary Clinton. His attitude became abrasive after the arrest of Raymond Davis in January 2011 and he became more rasping after 2 May raid but after closure of NATO supply routes in protest against 26 November callous attack on Salala killing 24 Pakistani soldiers and injuring 16, he lost his sense of balance. He went to extent of declaring that the US was losing patience and was at war with Pakistan in FATA. Pakistan’s arm was repeatedly twisted to force it to reopen the supply lines without asking for an apology or to stop drone attacks and after seven months coercion, the US succeeded in its mission. The only concession it has promised is to release the held up $1.2billion against CSF. In Afghanistan, the US tried all possible overt and covert means to defeat the Taliban but 11 years of its sustained efforts have run into a stalemate which favors the Taliban and not the occupiers. In the ongoing stalemate, both sides are getting bled. However, the Taliban least bothered about the casualties and hardships, consider the stalemated position their victory since they are not pressed for time. The war has become highly unpopular in US where nearly 70% are against it, but the hawkish military and civil leaders in Washington are not much concerned with the sentiments of the general public. For them, the military goals set in Afghanistan and around it are more important. The US military and NATO viewed as unbeatable and indispensable, refuse to concede defeat and are still hopeful that by dragging feet, some miracle might happen and endgame ends in their favor. Irrespective of their outward manifestation of bravado, inwardly they know that for all practical purposes they have lost the war and safe exit at the earliest is the only viable option. Transition phase which commenced in July 2011 is halfway and several provinces and districts/cities including Kabul have already been handed over to Afghan national security forces (ANSF). Ambitious expansionism of ANA has been cut down from 350,000 to 250,000 due to severe economic crunch. This cut was announced in Chicago summit held on 20-21 May. Efforts are in hand to generate $4.1 billion per year to train and maintain ANSF beyond 2014 for next ten years and to continue development works. Italy and Germany have pledged$100 million each, UK 100 million pounds and Pakistan $2 million. The US will bear 25-50% of total expenditure. Financial commitments will be finalized in the NATO summit scheduled in May 2014 in Tokyo.
In the Chicago summit, in which President Zardari was invitedat the 11th hour, the hosts were thoroughly disappointed whenZardari didn’t live up to their expectations by announcing reopening of NATOsupply lines vital for sustenance of ISAF. Pakistan was seen as a bad boydeserving to be punished. All its sacrifices were ignored and none bothered tocontemplate as to why Pakistan had blocked the supply routes. For all practical purposes, like Lisbonsummit or Bonn conference, Chicago summit was also a non-starter, sincePakistan was marginalized and the principal stakeholder Taliban were not partof it. It would have had some substance if a breakthrough had been achieved onQatar initiative.
Spurred by the support promised by USA and NATO membersduring the Chicago Summit and also by the strategic partnership agreementsinked by USA and several European countries as well as India, Karzai assuredthe audience that his government and security apparatus will be able to take onTaliban challenge squarely. Those were bold words but devoid of reality. Theground situation is that the current force level of 130,000 plus 350,000 ANSFhas not been able to checkmate resurgence of Taliban. Apart from theirstrongholds of eastern and southern Afghanistan where they enjoy complete sway,their fighters can strike any part of the country including Kabul. Majority ofNATO members have lost heart and are eager to return home much earlier than thecut out date of December 2014.
While Australia and Germany have announced withdrawal oftheir contingents by end 2013, UK would withdraw 500 troops of its 9500contingent by end of this year. Newly elected French President FrancoisHollande has shocked US and NATO Secretary General by announcing that Frenchcontingent of 3400 would exit by December 2012. Home pressure from USA and Europehas swelled and the war has become highly unpopular. Those favoring continuation of war aregetting marginalized. The trend of rising antipathy for GWOT and calls forbringing home the soldiers at the earliest as was evident from the protestmarches in Chicago and return of medals by war veterans during the Summit islikely to accelerate in 2013 and will have repercussions. Karzai, who is unpopular among the Pashtuns as well asnon-Pashtuns, will be completing his tenure as President by the close of 2014.Knowing that he had won the last elections by the skin of his teeth, there isno likelihood of his re-election in 2015. Therefore, to sign strategicagreements with US and other countries covering the period post 2014 is illegaland of no consequence.
The draw down plan envisages handing over full responsibilityto ANSF by mid 2013, after which the ISAF gets into non-combative role tillDecember 2014. After complete withdrawal of combat troops, a small but wellequipped force of about 15-20,000 troops, mostly from the US comprisingtrainers, technical advisers, security contractors, intelligence operators andSpecial Forces will be left behind to continue providing backup support to ANSFand to prevent Taliban from taking over. The backup force would have requisitenumber of jet fighters, gunship helicopters, drones and long range artillery.This force will essentially be there to assist re-induction of NATO force ifthe situation so demands. Given the plummeting political, financial andmilitary misfortunes of Europe, it is to be seen whether NATO will retain itspunch and whether it will recommit the folly of re-entering the graveyard ofempires.
Five military bases in Afghanistan are being retained by USA till2024 to keep the Taliban out of power, further strengthen India’s presence inAfghanistan, continue covert war against Pakistan, China and Iran, extract oiland gas from Central Asia, and to have a readily available base of operation incase war is declared against Iran. For the achievement of these objectives, itis absolutely essential for the US to have stable government in Kabul, acooperative Pakistan, unhindered supply routes through Pakistan and continueddeployment of Pakistan’s security forces in FATA.
The writer is a retired Brig and a freelance columnist anddefence analyst. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org