Tweet
Is war with Taliban at a crossroads?
Is war with Taliban at a crossroads?
Thursday, 02 June 2011
By NATHANIEL SHEPPARD JR.
Al Arabiya
Afghanistan’s demand that NATO halt drone strikes on houses as civilian casualties mount may bring the US war against remnants of the Taliban government and Al Qaeda fighters in the region to a crossroads.
Pakistan, which has called for a reduction in such strikes in its northwest provinces for the same reason, already has begun scaling back its military cooperation with the US, though that is due largely to rising domestic criticism over the bloody covert US attack in which Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed, an attack Pakistani officials knew nothing about until it was almost over.
Without the cooperation of the two allies—both of whom receive generous American aid annually—the US could not prosecute its war against Taliban and Al Qaeda rebels operating in mountainous, rural areas of both countries. Bombing by unmanned aircraft and attacks by helicopters are considered crucial to success of the efforts.
“If after the Afghan government said the aerial bombing of Afghan houses is banned and it continues, then their presence will change from a war against terrorism to an occupying force,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said at a news conference in Kabul, Tuesday, expressing outrage at NATO air strikes that killed nine people—most of them children—in two homes in southern Helmand Sunday.
“And in that case, Afghan history is witness to how the Afghans deal with occupying forces,” Mr. Karzai said.
He seemed to be alluding to the expulsion of Russian forces by the indigenous Mujahedeen in 1988 after the nine-year Soviet War in Afghanistan—but then, that was with the help of the CIA and US stinger missiles.
NATO’s US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) apologized for the incident, the latest in a string of drone mis-targeting in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have led to public disaffection with the war on terrorists.
The setback in Pakistan is equally troubling to the US, though both countries tried to put a smiley face of things last week after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials flew to the country to meet with government, military and security leaders, in part to smooth ruffled feathers.
Both sides said they had reached agreement to continue to work together but a drawdown of US military trainers and CIA operatives requested by Pakistan already was underway.
The severity of the rift should not be underestimated in view of persistent and scathing domestic criticism of Pakistani officials, especially the military, not only over the stealth Bin Laden operation but subsequent retaliatory attacks by Taliban suicide bombers that have killed 150 people, mostly soldiers.
Equally embarrassing, a small group of well-trained commandos attacked the Mehran naval base at Karachi last week. They blew up two sensitive surveillance aircraft then held a response team at bay for 17 hours.
Once proud of its prowess, backed by an arsenal of more than 100 nuclear warheads, the Pakistani military now finds itself backed up against a wall, viewed by an angry public as incapable of safeguarding the country’s borders or protecting them from attacks from within. It has become the butt of stinging jokes and recipient of a barrage of criticism from Parliament too.
To stanch the cascade of criticism, Pakistan has had to get tough with the US, or at least appear to do so, thus the order for some US troops to go home, a cutback in joint field operations and condemnation of the US for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty.
This also allows Pakistan to back away from US pressure that it pursues high value targets such as the Taliban hiding in remote safe havens in the country. Pakistan has been reluctant to do so for self-interests—the potential value of Taliban leaders in negotiating an end to attacks on Pakistan and to conflicts with Afghanistan.
The US is concerned not only for its efforts to dislodge the Taliban and al-Qaeda but also the balance of power in the region as a scorned Pakistan cozies up to China.
If both Pakistan and Afghanistan decide they can live without billions of dollars in US aid and handle the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their own, they could send the Uncle Sam packing, there indeed would be trouble at the crossroad. That, however, is perhaps a bit of a stretch, at least for now.
(Nathaniel Sheppard Jr. has worked as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. He can be reached at: natsheppard@gmail.com)
Is war with Taliban at a crossroads?
Thursday, 02 June 2011
By NATHANIEL SHEPPARD JR.
Al Arabiya
Afghanistan’s demand that NATO halt drone strikes on houses as civilian casualties mount may bring the US war against remnants of the Taliban government and Al Qaeda fighters in the region to a crossroads.
Pakistan, which has called for a reduction in such strikes in its northwest provinces for the same reason, already has begun scaling back its military cooperation with the US, though that is due largely to rising domestic criticism over the bloody covert US attack in which Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden was killed, an attack Pakistani officials knew nothing about until it was almost over.
Without the cooperation of the two allies—both of whom receive generous American aid annually—the US could not prosecute its war against Taliban and Al Qaeda rebels operating in mountainous, rural areas of both countries. Bombing by unmanned aircraft and attacks by helicopters are considered crucial to success of the efforts.
“If after the Afghan government said the aerial bombing of Afghan houses is banned and it continues, then their presence will change from a war against terrorism to an occupying force,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said at a news conference in Kabul, Tuesday, expressing outrage at NATO air strikes that killed nine people—most of them children—in two homes in southern Helmand Sunday.
“And in that case, Afghan history is witness to how the Afghans deal with occupying forces,” Mr. Karzai said.
He seemed to be alluding to the expulsion of Russian forces by the indigenous Mujahedeen in 1988 after the nine-year Soviet War in Afghanistan—but then, that was with the help of the CIA and US stinger missiles.
NATO’s US-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) apologized for the incident, the latest in a string of drone mis-targeting in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have led to public disaffection with the war on terrorists.
The setback in Pakistan is equally troubling to the US, though both countries tried to put a smiley face of things last week after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other officials flew to the country to meet with government, military and security leaders, in part to smooth ruffled feathers.
Both sides said they had reached agreement to continue to work together but a drawdown of US military trainers and CIA operatives requested by Pakistan already was underway.
The severity of the rift should not be underestimated in view of persistent and scathing domestic criticism of Pakistani officials, especially the military, not only over the stealth Bin Laden operation but subsequent retaliatory attacks by Taliban suicide bombers that have killed 150 people, mostly soldiers.
Equally embarrassing, a small group of well-trained commandos attacked the Mehran naval base at Karachi last week. They blew up two sensitive surveillance aircraft then held a response team at bay for 17 hours.
Once proud of its prowess, backed by an arsenal of more than 100 nuclear warheads, the Pakistani military now finds itself backed up against a wall, viewed by an angry public as incapable of safeguarding the country’s borders or protecting them from attacks from within. It has become the butt of stinging jokes and recipient of a barrage of criticism from Parliament too.
To stanch the cascade of criticism, Pakistan has had to get tough with the US, or at least appear to do so, thus the order for some US troops to go home, a cutback in joint field operations and condemnation of the US for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty.
This also allows Pakistan to back away from US pressure that it pursues high value targets such as the Taliban hiding in remote safe havens in the country. Pakistan has been reluctant to do so for self-interests—the potential value of Taliban leaders in negotiating an end to attacks on Pakistan and to conflicts with Afghanistan.
The US is concerned not only for its efforts to dislodge the Taliban and al-Qaeda but also the balance of power in the region as a scorned Pakistan cozies up to China.
If both Pakistan and Afghanistan decide they can live without billions of dollars in US aid and handle the Taliban and Al Qaeda on their own, they could send the Uncle Sam packing, there indeed would be trouble at the crossroad. That, however, is perhaps a bit of a stretch, at least for now.
(Nathaniel Sheppard Jr. has worked as a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and The New York Times. He can be reached at: natsheppard@gmail.com)
Comment