close
Thursday March 28, 2024

Trump and the Afghan conundrum

By Malik Muhammad Ashraf
August 30, 2017

An incisive look at world history proves, beyond any iota of doubt, that powerful nations were responsible for wars and human-triggered tragedies that consumed millions of lives. These nations invariably justified their indiscretions through their own contrived values and interests.

They displayed an impulsive propensity to solve problems through the use of sheer force rather than preferring diplomacy. The dilemma of the mighty is that they were and still continue to be trapped by their egoistic inclinations rather than perceiving issues from rational and human perspectives. The result of this skewed approach has been wars and destruction.

The US is quintessential of the historic model of strong nations that act irrationally and pile miseries on the people. It is, in one way or the other, either directly responsible for or has supported modern-day conflicts to achieve its own perceived national and strategic interests.

Andrew J Bacevich, a professor emeritus of         history and international relations at Boston University’s Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies reminisced on US involvement in the Vietnam War and the blitzkrieg in Iraq in an article published on May 5, 2015. In his article, he decoded the permeating American  mindset that triggered these conflicts and testified to the proposition made above in the following words: “Arguments offered up by the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, broadly supported by members of the political elite, that preserving South Vietnam constituted a vital US national security interest – all the claptrap about domino theories and fighting in Southeast Asia to keep the Reds from invading California –have, with the passage of time, become simply incomprehensible.

“Rising above all other egregious deceptions, at least in my mind, is the fact that American leaders knew then          that the myth of monolithic communism was just that – a politically expedient figment of fevered imaginations. In reality, the Vietnamese hated the Chinese. For their part, the Chinese loathed and mistrusted the Russians. True, all three viewed the [US] as an antagonist. Yet as President Nixon shrewdly if belatedly – perhaps even cynically – demonstrated, it lay within Washington’s capability to alter such perceptions. As a great power, the US had options that it could exercise, given political leadership of sufficient wit and boldness. This fact retains considerable relevance in the present moment, with warmongers among us insisting that absent a recommitment of US combat troops to Iraq [Isis] will soon overrun all of Europe en route to creating a global Caliphate.

“The more closely you examine the methods devised for prosecuting the Vietnam War – search-and-destroy combined with brutal but ineffective bombing – the more it becomes apparent that US efforts were all but doomed from the outset. Having considered the range of possibilities available to them, civilian and military leaders chose the one least likely to yield success: a protracted war of attrition fought in a faraway land about which most Americans knew little and cared even less. By comparison, the Iraq War so recklessly begun and so radically mismanaged by George W Bush and his generals almost seems a reasonable and well-conducted proposition – only by comparison.”

The American military adventure in Afghanistan is a sequel to the same streak of irrationality and egoism. In the backdrop of 9/11, the wounded ego called for vengeance. The leadership of the time – like the previous US administrations – decided to consider the military option with immediate effect even though other alternatives could have been exercised to bring the perpetrators of the horrendous act to pay for their inhuman indiscretion. They committed the same mistake as they did in case of Vietnam and Iraq.

Einstein said that doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result is insanity. US military action in Afghanistan was an act of insanity from the outset as per the ground realities. After engaging in a protracted war of 16 years, spending trillions of dollars, receiving hundreds of body bags and killing thousands of Afghans, the US has failed to achieve its objective.

Former US president Obama did try to get the US out of this fruitless and inconsequential adventure, raising hopes for peace in Afghanistan. But the arrival of Trump has reversed the process. The new president, like previous US administrations, has opted to rely on the military strength of the country to beat the Taliban into submission in complete disregard of the lessons learnt over the last 16 years.

It has long been the American strategy to look for scapegoats for their misadventures to justify their failures. In the case of Afghanistan, they find it convenient to pin the blame on the threshold of Pakistan – an ally that has suffered the most in the war against terror. Pakistan has made relentless efforts to promote peace in the war-ravaged country through bilateral and multilateral channels and even facilitated the first-ever interface between the Afghan government and the Taliban – which, unfortunately, could not continue following Mullah Omar’s death.

It is painful to note that instead of recognising the sacrifices rendered by Pakistan, the US has chosen to target the country and neglect the tremendous role played by it in fighting militancy as a frontline state.

The bellicose posturing by Trump has invoked a sharp reaction within Pakistan as well as by the former allies of the US administration. Hamid Karzai has termed the new US strategy on Afghanistan and South Asia as a recipe to foment conflict and scuttle the prospects of peace in the region. China has also come out in support of Pakistan with regard to its contribution to the war on terror and contradicted the accusations made by Trump. Russia also does not believe that America’s new strategy on Afghanistan will lead to any significant and positive changes in the country. The Taliban have already rejected the new initiative and vowed to fight the foreign occupiers. So, it is all set for a renewed conflict in Afghanistan, with a negative fallout for neighbouring countries.

In a firm and comprehensive response to America’s new strategy, Pakistan has outright rejected Trump’s allegations and insinuations that ignore its sacrifices in the war against terror and belittle its efforts for peace in Afghanistan. Recounting our efforts to fight terrorism, promote peace in Afghanistan and endure the blowback effects of the conflict in Afghanistan, it rightly called for the elimination of safe havens in Afghanistan where terrorist attacks were being launched against Pakistan.

Pakistan did well by expressing its commitment to support the elimination of terrorism to the US and the global community and simultaneously defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Asserting its claim as a responsible nuclear state also gave off the right vibe. In addition, by rejecting India as a provider of peace and reiterating support to the people of Kashmir was also a timely reminder to the world community of its obligations.

By re-opting for a military solution, the US has made a serious mistake. It cannot resolve the conflict in Afghanistan through bombs – just as it couldn’t in Vietnam or Iraq. It needs to revisit its strategy and engage regional countries, including Pakistan, to find a negotiated solution if it wants peace. It must understand that a solution to the Afghan conundrum is not possible without the unqualified support of Pakistan, as rightly pointed out by the Russian foreign minister.

The writer is a freelance contributor.

Email: ashpak10@gmail.com