Dwindling Economy Diminished the Dream to Reign over Afghan People
By SYYED MANSOOR AGHA
Gloomed by remaining unsuccessful in his ambition to reign over people of Afghanistan un-challenged, and devastating the country’s economy in the process, the world supreme military power, along with its allies in NATO, seems on retreat albeit wearing a mask of ‘dignity’ and claims of “triumph”. Announcing withdrawal of 33,000 U.S. troops in stages, U.S. President Barack Obama trumpeted un-visible “gains against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.” France followed the suit and President Nicholas Sarkozy announced in Paris, “France will begin a gradual withdrawal of reinforcement troops, in a proportional manner and in a calendar comparable to the withdrawal of American reinforcements.”
Obama announced he is withdrawing 10,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year and will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by the middle of next year.
In his televised address on June 22, the U.S. president maintained that Al Qaeda has been dramatically weakened – not least by the killing of Osama bin Laden – and that the Taliban has been deprived of many of its strongholds. He said, “These accomplishments are important.”
Recently American Generals in Afghanistan have expressed apprehension to solve the Afghan Problem militarily. This was followed by Americans opening a window for talks with Taliban. To facilitate talks, UNO, on US request, separated Taliban and al Qaeda, and they will be treated as two entities. In another move, the council approved the removal of about 20 Taliban leaders from the UN blacklist. Peace lovers all over the world welcomed the move to start negotiations instead of using guns.
As claimed by Mr. Obama, America has achieved their goal to a great extent in Afghanistan. However, the irony is that whatever America “achieved” was not in the field of war, but by clandestine operations of targeted killings. The ten years history of occupying forces is full of violations of human rights and International Laws of war (Geneva Conventions). I quote, Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention:
“Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.
“Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their person, honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war.”
Torture stories from Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility in Cuba, air attacks on Mosques and Madrasas and residential houses; resulting in killing of hundreds non-combatant civilians, including women and children and drowning of Osama corpse in the sea show the gravity of disrespect of civilized norms and the brutality of American occupying forces.
After 9/11 incidence of falling World Trade Centre in New York, Bush regime blamed Osama bin Laden for the conspiracy and demanded Taliban to hand him over to America. On September 21, the Taliban responded to the American demand, promising that if the U.S. could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks. On October 4, the Taliban agreed to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic law; but Pakistan, apparently under American pressure blocked the offer as it was not possible to guarantee his safety. On October 7, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan offered to detain bin Laden and try him under Islamic law if the U.S. made a formal request and presented the Taliban with evidence. A Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, rejected the Taliban offer, and stated that the U.S. would not negotiate their demands.
The U.S. petitioned the international community to back a military campaign to overthrow the Taliban. The U.N. issued two resolutions but did not authorise military intervention in Afghanistan of any kind, and nowhere in the U.N. resolutions did it say military operations in Afghanistan were justified or conformed to international law. Despite this, NATO approved a campaign against Afghanistan as self-defence against armed attack.
Still on October 7, and less than one month after the Twin Towers fell, the U.S., aided by the United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries including several from the NATO alliance, initiated military action, without any authorisation from UNO, bombing Taliban and Al-Qaeda-related camps.
In Jan 2002, 4100 American paramilitary personnel landed in Afghanistan. The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban Regime from power, and prevent the use of Afghanistan as a “terrorist base of operations.” By November 13, the Taliban had withdrawn from both Kabul and Jalalabad. Finally, in early December, the Taliban gave up Kandahar, their last stronghold, dispersing without surrendering. Thus the Americans have achieved their declared objective as early as in November 2002, but surge of military personnel continued. The number of troops in April 2004 increased to 19,500, in Feb 05 it was 20500, till May 08, 35,600, in May 09 was 44700, rose to 67,500 in Nov 09, and 98,000 in Sep 2010. Presently it is one lakh.
Even after withdrawal of intended 33,000, the number of American troops shall remain as high as 67,000. Truly, Wednesday night when Obama announced: “Tonight we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding” he acknowledged that resistance in Afghanistan is still grave that needed 67,000 troops still stationed in the country.
As Los Angeles Times commented, “Despite the withdrawal, which will be larger than his military advisors wanted, Obama hopes that the remaining 68,000 U.S. troops, working alongside Afghan forces and allies, can consolidate the gains made after the surge and speed the next troop.”
“So do we, but we also hope that the United States will continue to withdraw troops at a steady pace right up to 2014, the NATO deadline for turning over security responsibilities completely to the Afghan government. Without belittling the military achievements, Obama mentioned, we don’t think the Afghan enterprise is worth the investment of lives and resources America has made.”
In contrast to his 2009 decision to send additional forces to Afghanistan, Obama appeared to give greater weight this time to the growing impatience of a war-weary public and a sceptical Congress, whose members have been demanding a rapid drawdown and a narrower mission after nearly a decade of battle.
An American analyst observed: Obama was a relatively new commander in chief when he authorised the troop “surge” 18 months ago. Today he is a candidate for re-election at the head of a party deeply opposed to the war, and he emphasised his push to end the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to “reclaim the American dream that is at the centre of our story.”
It is not difficult to understand that symbolic drawdown is not a result of situations in war zone but a step taken on account of political compulsion home and economic devastation of the country, as Obama acknowledged, “Over the last decade, we have spent $1 trillion on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times,” he said in a 13-minute address that sounded at times like a campaign speech. “America, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.”
Another newspaper wrote, “The war effort costs the United States about $10 billion a month – a figure some Congressional leaders have called “unsustainable” – and a majority of Americans no longer think the battle is worth fighting. Since the war began, more than 25 hundred troops have been killed in Afghanistan.
Another observer wrote, “Obviously, there are politics involved in President Obama’s decision to withdraw 33,000 troops from Afghanistan over the next 15 months. As the 2012 presidential campaign launches, polls show that a majority of the public does not want U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
“It’s an unpopular and costly war. Americans are battle-weary. They question the effectiveness of a war strategy that could drag on for years. And at a time when the nation doesn’t have enough money to provide basic services at home, the public watches billions of dollars flowing into a corrupt country run by an international conman, with many Afghans still regarding us as the enemy.”
Killing of Osama bin Laden and now Obama’s announcement of troop’s reduction in Afghanistan is to boost his image at home at a time when Presidential elections are nearing and economy is dwindling. Recovery is slower than expected and the 2nd wave of economic slumps has started coming from Europe. Involvement with NATO allies in Libya war has increased pressure on weak economy.
A prominent Indian analyst C. Rajamohan, in his analysis (24 June, I.E) has seen the development with a different angle. He described Obama’s decision to start pulling out troops from Afghanistan as the ‘beginning of the end game’ for the United States”. But he has cautions India: there is no end to the ‘Great Game’ in the turbulent lands between the Indus and the Hindu Kush.”
Rajamohan underlines the President’s tough message to Pakistan on safe havens to terrorists and the indirect reference to establishing bases in Afghanistan from which the Americans would like to target terror groups.
Obama has not indicated his intention to withdraw U.S. troops completely from Afghanistan and made it clear that America wants to “build a partnership with Afghanistan that endures – one that ensures that we will be able to continue targeting terrorists and supporting a sovereign Afghan government”.
He says, “Obama’s assertions provide the flip side to the widespread perception that a weakened US is simply retreating from the Afghan arena. While the US will indeed stop fighting in Afghanistan by 2014, it wants to retain the ability to target “terror hideouts” in Pakistan.”
Interestedly when America invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan was the only country with diplomatic relations with the Taliban Regime. US President George W. Bush called Musharraf at midnight and gave him ultimatum: “No third choice, with us or against us”. The stern warning coerced Musharraf to open Pakistan’s air bases for American troops and let them carry attacks on landlocked Afghanistan. What an irony! After ten years, President Obama is seeking bases in Afghanistan to attack “al-Qaeda hideouts” in Pakistan. In 2002, America turned down Taliban offer to come on table. Today America is creating conditions to bring Taliban on the table. In May 1988, erstwhile U.S.S.R. started withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and its ambition to rule over Afghanistan caused its end. Let us watch what happens to America which is much weaker today in comparison to January 2002 when his first troops landed in the country.
[The writer is Gen. Sec of Forum for Civil Rights. Email: [email protected]]