Twirp: Terrorist Wahabi Islamic Rep Pakistan 4

[acharya]

Obama’s new exit strategy in Afghanistan

Friday August 21, 2009 (1635 PST)



While the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen hinted on Taliban’s effort to gain access to nuclear weapons for killing large bulk of Americans, the US and Nato allies in Afghanistan are trying to reach out to the second tier of the Taliban leadership.

In a briefing paper for President Barack Obama on the situation in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in Afghanistan, disagreed with those who say that no dialogue with the Taliban was possible. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the new head of Nato, said in an interview that he would support dialogue with “moderate groups on the outer reaches of the Taliban”. Rasmussen’s comments echoed British Foreign Secretary David Miliband advanced a more conciliatory tone on engaging with Taliban willing to renounce violence and embrace politics. Even the new commander of the British army, General Richards, had to concede the need for negotiations, believing that a negotiated settlement may be necessary to end the conflict.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington agrees with the British analysis of the way forward. Taking advantage from the developments/feedbacks by on-ground commanders & strategists, Obama Administration’s new “exit strategy” for Afghanistan makes a clear difference between al-Qaeda and the Taliban and while it seeks no reconciliation with al Qaeda, it recognises the Taliban as an important player in Afghanistan’s political affairs.

A strong need is felt to civilize the Taliban so Afghanistan is not ‘Talibanised’ again.

Kai Eide, a Norwegian diplomat who heads the UN mission to Afghanistan gave an embarrassing analysis by suggesting the world body to help in delivering humanitarian aid in the Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan.

In order to have a better insight in the Pashtun society in Afghanistan, Taliban are classified into three categories: (a) the first tier consists of staunch and hard line Taliban commanders having their links to al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden said in 2006, “We do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stand by ... a truce which offers security and stability and the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan which war has destroyed.”

The United States dismissed the offer, saying it “does not negotiate with terrorists.” Recently, al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri had offered a conditional truce to President Obama during an interview with al Qaeda’s media arm As-sahab, posted on an Islamist website on August 3. This hardcore element must be crushed relentlessly.

(b)The second tier is considered susceptible to peace overtures because it comprises tribal leaders who joined the Taliban out of tribal loyalty and financial and political benefits and not for ideological commitment. © The third tier is the foot soldiers with no strong commitments as they are simply followers of their tribal leaders. They are not deeply ideological in nature or even politically motivated. Most are operating for pay; some are under a commander’s charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders.

As part of the new strategy, 70,000 US and Nato troops had started ‘clearing the first tier of the Taliban leadership’ comprising hardcore militants. US policy planners hope that doing so would not only eliminate the hard line Taliban fighters; it will also allow ‘the second tier’ to come forward. The second tier is regarded as crucial because such local leaders control large numbers of Taliban fighters in Pashtun-dominated southern Afghanistan and appear willing to talk.

The most recent situation of Afghanistan is very grim as there are large swaths of the country where things are getting worse. All US media outlets, pointed out that July was the deadliest month for US-led forces in Afghanistan since 2001. Last month, 70 foreign troops - including 42 Americans - were killed in Afghanistan. Six more US soldiers were killed on the first two days of August.

The reports warn that casualty toll is expected to remain high as US troops attempt to reclaim territory from the Taliban. With the latest killing, the number of western troops killed since the conquest of Afghanistan had risen to 1100 mark. Many Nato members had begun to lose faith in the mission and one by one they have begun making plans to pull out.

The Dutch are expected to recall their soldiers from Afghanistan next year and Canada is debating a 2011 pullout.

Meanwhile, Great Britain’s role in the conflict had come under fire at home after 22 soldiers were killed during fighting last month alone. It is concluded that the international effort in Afghanistan since 2001 had delivered much less than it promised and that its impact had been significantly diluted by the absence of a unified vision and strategy grounded in the realities of Afghanistan’s history, culture and politics. The recently concluded report on the “Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan” says that drone attacks by US forces in Pakistan have ‘damaged the American reputation. Many European countries including Germany and Italy have been reluctant, citing public opposition to greater involvement in the country.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, facing a re-election challenge later this month, has repeatedly called for talks with Taliban leaders on condition that the militants accept Afghanistan’s constitution.

Karzai has even guaranteed safe passage for Omar if he attends such talks. Omar has dismissed the overtures, calling him an American puppet and saying no talks can happen while foreign troops are in the country.

President Karzai even with the support of 53,000 foreign troops (23,000 US troops under US command, 30,000 US, British, and other troops in ISAF - the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force), has failed to gain foothold in the Taliban areas and in fact is restricted to the capital only. Despite the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in October 2001, the US-led allied forces had failed to uproot the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. The US, Nato and Afghan forces have not been able to control more than 30% of Afghanistan with all the resources and gadgets at their disposal.

While reviewing US exit strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is considering the possibility of negotiations with the elements of the insurgents. A face saving formula may involve creation of conditions whereby Nato and the US can claim “victory”. This will not be a victory where the enemy is completely vanquished. The experience has shown that neither a Taliban re-conquest of Afghanistan is likely, nor can the Taliban be crushed in the foreseeable future. It will, rather, be a far more realistic victory given the present circumstances. Terming the negotiations as an option ‘worth exploring’ US must initiate talks with the Taliban element immediately and then set a deadline for US and Nato troops withdrawal. The various recommendations of the on-ground commanders and policy-makers should be incorporated to plan a viable exit strategy, keeping in mind the unaffordability of maintaining thousands of Nato/Isaf troops in Afghanistan for the times to come.