The Hokus Pokus About The Quad and AUKUS

The Hokus Pokus About The Quad and AUKUS

                                                                                  Saeed Naqvi

 

Robert Blackwill, US ambassador at the time of anti terror fireworks over Afghanistan, had established a tradition of seating guests at lunch around a circular table, where he grandly held forth, initiating a discussion. “Imagine I am Henry Kissinger” would be one of his opening gambits. An idea was tossed up. A discussion followed. The one who spoke the most, ate the least, because all plates were removed in one swoop.

On one such occasion, before soup was served, the ambassador announced with considerable satisfaction that Pakistan’s President Musharraf had decided to join the global war on terror as the frontline state.

Seated to my right the late Pranab Mukherjee, was agitated. He whispered his anger to me. It was uncanny. What he whispered was exactly the question shaping up in my mind. I raised my hand: “You are aware that New Delhi had complained consistently about cross border terrorism from Pakistan particularly since 1989.” Pranab Da (as Mukherjee was affectionately addressed) completed my question in his typical arrangement of words: “It is most worrying no doubt – you now have Pakistan as the frontline state in your war against terror?” pause. “They perpetrate terror against this county.”

Blackwill spoke volumes in two brief sentences:

“Musharraf has joined us in our global war on terror. What you are talking about is your old regional quarrel.” Juxtapose this with the Quad-AUKUS equation.

Atal Behari Vajpayee, as Prime Minister, had hosted President Bill Clinton for full five days in January 2000, just the previous year. Clinton spent just five hours in Islamabad, mostly chastising Musharraf for disrupting regional peace since Kargil. New Delhi was in seventh heaven. Terms of endearment with Washington had radically altered.

In a little over a year, had George W Bush, reversed that equation? Pakistan was incorporate into the global war on terror even as New Delhi cried foul. Pakistan was in the “A” team against terror; we were not.

Likewise, there is this idea of Quad in which New Delhi is such an enthusiastic participant. Australians and the Japanese did, frequently, vent their skepticism, invested as they were in the Chinese economy. After the American debacle in Kabul, however, Tokyo’s misgiving on Quad were all over the Japanese media. The hemorrhage had to be forestalled.

With the suddenness of revelation came the announcement of AUKUS (Australia, UK, US), the powerful military alliance in Indo-Pacific of which India alas, is not a partner. So New Delhi is trying to pack content into an abruptly devalued Quad. Did Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s photograph with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on the margins of the UNGA, flatter New Delhi? Pardon my complexes, does not a leader wearing AUKUS plus Quad badges dwarf the one with a frayed Quad pinned to the lapel? I would not go as far as the wag who takes the uncharitable view that the US takes India for granted exactly as secular political parties regard the Muslim vote: where else can they go?

AUKUS must have been in the works for some time but it was sprung upon the world when the US felt the earth move from beneath its feet in Kabul. The furious response from France only disguises anger in the EU which is talking of security outside NATO. That AUKUS is a purely Anglophone grouping should not be a surprise. Games have been played before to keep some clubs racially segregated.

For instance, when the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 placed a question mark on the need for NATO, Margaret Thatcher, then on a trip to Helsinki, was asked by a reporter: Now that the Soviet threat has gone, what was the justification for Britain’s nuclear deterrent?

Thatcher shot back “We still have a problem in the Middle East.” Thereafter, along with George Bush the senior, she began to put together “a coalition of the willing” ostensibly to oust Saddam Hussain from Kuwait. Saddam-in-Kuwait was the ignition point, not the larger perspective against which Operation Desert Storm of 1991 was designed.

Anglophone dominance of the world order since World War II, faced a challenge. Soviet collapse had brought about a reunification of Germany. This at a time when the Japanese economy was booming. It was easy to raise the spectre of AXIS, without actually mentioning the “A” word.

France, always ready with its own compass to navigate world affairs, initially dragged its feet on the coalition led by US and UK. President Francoise Mitterand was among the last to join the “coalition of the willing”. It was the biggest military coalition since 1945 – a grouping of 39 countries. Given their obsession, Pundits may be interested to know that Pakistan was part of that coalition.

As one who covered the story from Baghdad, I am possibly the only Indian witness who can confirm that the show was run exclusively by US and Britain. There were two separate press briefings, for the US and British media by their respective spokesmen. French journalists, like the lonesome me, were on the outside. It may be added in parenthesis, that the British media on this occasion were the poor cousins. From the terrace of the Al Rashied hotel, Peter Arnett of the CNN inaugurated what came to be known as the global media. The war was brought live into the world’s drawing rooms. John Simpson of the BBC, by comparison, cut a sorry figure, walking around with a satellite telephone. It was only after being beaten by the CNN during Operation Desert Storm that the BBC World Service TV was launched.

To revert to AUKUS, yes the French fury is understandable. Not only was a $90 billion submarine order being stolen, but an Anglophone dominated world order was being perpetuated. This is what infuriated President Emmanuel Macron. It just so happens that the turn of events has also provided Macron with an occasion to fall back on a de Gaulle style nationalism just when his ratings are plummeting and all manner of candidates are tossing their hats in the ring for the next elections.

#          #          #          #

Limits To Power: Taleban In Kabul, Jailbreak In Israel

Limits To Power: Taleban In Kabul, Jailbreak In Israel

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

 

What could possibly be common between the Taleban brandishing their weapons in Kabul and Palestinians twirling their spoons (yes, tea-spoons) with a flourish? Well, the latter were celebrating because six Palestinian prisoners had pulled off a seemingly impossible escape from the high security Gilboa prison in Northern Israel. Clearly an embarrassment for a state which flaunts national security as a marketable commodity. The spoon has become an emblem because the six used it as an implement to dig a hole in the toilet attached to their cell.

The prisoners, according to Israeli authorities, were affiliated with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to the Times of Israel, the leader of the group, Zakaria Zubeidi, was “a former commander in Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.” That Zubeidi and three others (at the time of writing) have been arrested is a separate chapter. Kabul and Gilboa establish without any shadow of a doubt a reality all too common in history: limits to power. In this instance, the US globally and its ally Israel, regionally – particularly considering its stalemate with Arab militias like Hezbollah.

Massive intelligence failure attended both the events. True, a jailbreak cannot be compared with the reconquest of a country but that is not the way Palestinians see it. The Times of Israel reports: “the escape is considered a highly symbolic success for the terror groups. It is being celebrated with ‘euphoria’ among Palestinians.”

Taleban, likewise, in the initial flush are folk heroes in Afghanistan and beyond having done a David on Goliath. To bring out the irony in sharp focus on the US debacle in Afghanistan, recall the January 29, 2002, State of the Union address by President George W Bush. The President sketched in bold colours the “Axis of Evil.” Ironies upon ironies attend that speech. Bush welcomes Hamid Karzai as “leader of liberated Afghanistan.” Karzai is now under house arrest. Bush gloats “Terrorists who once occupied Afghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay.” There is a disconcerting update on this too. Not only have Taleban returned to power in Kabul, atleast five in the new Kabul power structure were released from Guantanamo Bay in 2015.

What does all this portend? Is a phase of Imperialism coming full circle? One cannot expect US President Joe Biden to say it in quite that language, but what else does one make of his promise to end “never ending” wars. American youth who are now 20 years of age, have never seen “America at peace.” Suicide rate among military veterans as high as 18 per day? Biden, clearly abhors this data.

The problem, ofcourse is, that Biden is only the President, not the system. Even so he is proceeding with some sense of the consensus he has forged around him. For him to declassify secret FBI report which reveals the connection of Saudi Nationals to 9/11, indicates a sharp departure from past practice. Remember the days of George W Bush and his buddy Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan, or Bandar Bush as he was called because of his chumminess with the President? Those days seem like ancient history, days when Israel and Saudi Arabia were equally sacrosanct. Both had to be protected from bad copy.

And now even military protection is being withdrawn. In recent weeks the US removed its most advanced missile defense system, and Patriot batteries from the Kingdom which faces attacks from, say, Houthis in Yemen. Troop reductions from Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan have also been confirmed by the Pentagon. Departure from Afghanistan will remain vivid in our minds for years. Despite these stories every American strategist will tell you “the Middle East is not being abandoned.” There is that “over the horizon” capability which includes updated drones. British premier Boris Johnson calls it “outside-in” ability.

Israel, which is busy adjusting to limits on its power as a concept, must place in its calculus the US distancing itself from the Arab theatre. Yes, support for Israel in the US remains durable – Jewish control of banks, media, institutes of learning, election, finance. What is not so well known is what Noam Chomsky describes as much the most powerful support for Israel – Christian Zionism. Former Israeli Ambassador in the US, Ron Dermer, has urged Israel to prioritize maintaining the support of the American evangelical Christian. It must be assiduously wooed. “People must understand that the backbone of support for Israel in the US is the evangelical Christian.” The quote is from The Palestinian Policy Network, Al-Shabaka. Israel can breathe easy because there is no indication of Biden distancing himself from this line of thinking.

US thinning out from the region will accentuate popular perception of Israel’s exclusive support base inside the US. As Israel rolls its eyes around to size up the neighbourhood for subtle adjustments, it will find to its chagrin, Iran undiminished. Houthis in Yemen, Hashd al Shaabi in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, groups supportive of President Assad in Syria and increasing reports of Iranian role in Afghanistan, initiated by the late Quds Commander, Qasem Soleimani – all of these enhance Iran’s position in the region. The cookie in Afghanistan having crumbled the way it has, Iran’s role in this theatre may in the future be of interest to the US.

The launch of AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) an idea borrowed conceptually from ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and US) against the Soviet Union shows the urgency Biden accords to what Barack Obama called “pivot to Asia”. The pivot was of much greater saliency. West Asia, though still important, had placed a disproportionate demand on Washington’s attention. The nuclear deal conferred on Tehran the kind of legitimacy that was to have enabled it to balance power in the region. This would be in concert with Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Turkey. The regional balance of power would then require less day to day attention, freeing Washington to pay greater attention to the pivot. That appears to be the route on Biden’s GPS.

#          #          #          #

Is Biden Ending Islamophobia? What Shall We Do Then?

Is Biden Ending Islamophobia? What Shall We Do Then?

                                                                                Saeed Naqvi

Our media has been pegging away, at a nagging length, on the “terrorists” in the Taleban cabinet and who are controlled by Pakistan. The information available to us would have been so much more reliable had our embassy not shut entirely. Our ambassador had to leave early because in the Taleban versus US-Ghani conflict we clearly sided with the losing side. Is the media campaign against an alleged Taleb-Pak compact part of our rearguard action? Considering that the first demonstration by women was against Pakistan interference in Kabul proves two things: that a demonstration can take place under Taleb rule and that Pakistan being the target is occasion for reflection: Indians are not unpopular at the street level, Pakistan is.

Consistency continued to define coordination with the defeated occupiers at the UN where, as rotational President of the Security Council, we navigated a resolution on Afghanistan on terms which caused Russia and China to abstain.

This does not mean we are not on talking terms with Moscow. In fact Nikolai Patrushev, Russian National Security Chief was in the capital on the same day as CIA Director William Burns. It may be too early to spot a pattern, but overt engagement by the NSA with his counterparts and a low key if not exactly covert contact with the Taleban by the MEA –– this seems to be the emerging pattern. The Shanghai Co-operation Organization sponsored regional conference on Afghanistan in Dushanbe on September 16-17 may clarify future approaches.

How long will the media froth in the mouth about Taleb-Pak perfidy? Supposing the Talebs consolidate themselves independent of Islamabad, will the media change? How will it make the summersault? The town criers have their difficulties. Having spread saffron with a sense of dedication over decades, they surely cannot be expected to abruptly put saffron back in the bottle.

The Modi regime’s requirement are not for short term Taleban bashing. It would like the “ogre” in public view at least until UP elections, February to March. What with the farmers agitation, joblessness, dipping economy, scary price rise, vaccine vacillations, Covid confusion, demoralizing Bengal defeat, courts finding their feet, all these and more can only be thwarted by a double fisted saffron punch. There is nothing else in the toolkit. Political fortunes would sink if, say, Yogi Adityanath were by some miraculous trick seen with a Taleban. In other words, all regional initiatives involving Talebs have to be kept on hold. In any case, Muslim bashing is almost a reflex action.

The recent controversy sought to be created on Naseeruddin Shah’s oracular sermon distancing Indian Muslims from Taleb celebrations in Kabul was a function of the majority community’s stereotype expectations of Muslim behaviour. Naseer, his supporters and detractors completely misread the Muslim reaction to the emergence of Taleb power in Kabul. Muslims are thrilled at the Americans being trounced, not Talebs coming to power. That the Talebs beat the mighty power entitles them to admiration, not their Islamism and the accompanying optics.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh invited President George W Bush, during his March 2006 visit to New Delhi, to address a joint session of Parliament, Muslims protested in such large numbers that Ramlila ground overflowed onto the roads. It was acute Muslim anger at Bush for having spread Islamophobia worldwide in the guise of the global war on terror. Bush’s address to the two Houses was called off. The President picnicked at the Old Fort instead. In other words, anti Americanism is all pervasive among Muslim for an obvious reason: US led war on terror indiscriminately cast them in unacceptable stereotypes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi may know a thing or two about political profit from the war on terror. By an amazing configuration of stars. Modi was sworn in as Chief Minister of Gujarat on October 7, 2001, exactly the day when US began air strikes on Afghanistan. When the world’s most spectacular fireworks dominated TV screens 24X7, terrorism became the flavour of the season for our leaders. When I turned up at Godhra after the train carnage, Collector, Jayanti Ravi, was unable to give details because, she said, the case had been instantly handed over to Vijay Vipul, DIG anti terror squad even before preliminary inquiries had been made. The carnage was on act of terror: period.

The rise and rise of Modi was in an atmosphere of the global war on terror, the musical score taken to its crescendo by what Ravish Kumar calls the “godi” (to rhyme with Modi) or “lapdog” media. Deafening reverberations from that music predictably greets the arrival of Taleban too. The Modi regime’s political baptism took place when the world was in the grip of high decibel Islamophobia. Historical Hindu grievances were reinforced by the US war on terror. An anti Muslim edge now defines our DNA.

With the suddenness of revelation Joe Biden has announced an end to “never ending” wars on terror, a stance most disorienting for the rulers who cannot conceive life sans Islamophobia.

Taleban is not the only problem. All countries ringing Afghanistan are Muslim. The only non Muslim neighbour is China, which is worse. EAM Jaishankar has been meeting Iranian leaders in Tehran. He may be able to corroborate well known Palestinian journalist Abdel Bari Atwan who is convinced that the ferocity of the Taleban advance was not the only reason for victory. Covert help from Russia and Iran were too. One reason for eliminating the iconic Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani was the fact that he planned military strategy for Taleban, persuaded them to shed their anti Shiaism and convinced his regime that the Taleban was the only force with wide support among the country’s 18 million Pushtoon – they alone could forge a wider coalition to defeat America. He appointed Esmail Qaani as the Liaison Officer with the Taleban. Qaani is now Soleimani’s successor.

All of this should provide comfort. Pakistan may not be the only puppeteer pulling the strings.

#          #          #          #

US-Afghan: “A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma?”

US-Afghan: “A Riddle, Wrapped In A Mystery Inside An Enigma?”

                                                                                          Saeed Naqvi

 

The regional summit in Dushanbe, capital of Tajikistan, on September 16 and 17 under the auspices of the Shanghai Co-operative Organization, will search for greater clarity on whether or not the Taleban have begun to find their feet in Kabul.

There is undoubtedly more bounce in the tread of Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mohammad Qureshi as he touches capitals of countries sharing borders with Afghanistan. Such a summit would for Pakistan be what dreams are made of. China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan all have borders. But the Tajik border with Afghanistan is supervised by Russian troops. Even otherwise, as members of SCO, both Russia and India will qualify.

New Delhi, which had placed its eggs in the Ashraf Ghani’s basket in Kabul under US supervision, is now looking for new hatcheries. A quest for alternatives has been tentatively on for some time. Has New Delhi been nimble or are some of the others listed above spotted in the new situation an occasion to lessen New Delhi’s absolute dependence on Washington. The narrative that Washington has promoted Islamabad as a dominant player in Kabul, unsettles South Block. Which is why it is being whispered in New Delhi’s ears.

Reaching out to the Taleban or countries bordering Afghanistan, entails internal adjustments, toning down jingoism, a tricky proposition on the eve of elections in UP in 2022 or national elections in 2024. That is the Modi regime’s problem.

On Afghanistan, my mantra is: that which is, is not. Yes, on the face of it, United States has suffered a defeat as humiliating as the one in Vietnam in 1975. In the minds of the new-cons around George W Bush, all the reversals of the 70s and 80s (and there were many) would be forgotten in the post Soviet “full spectrum global dominance”, the “American century”. But alas there never was any restoration of the American élan after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008-09. It has been downhill since despite the town criers who have been allotted the facility of the global media.

This media and its backers will continue to pester Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan. The optics must be horrible for a people who have never been aware of the untold destruction of some of the world’s oldest civilizations. It would make your hair stand if you realize the callousness of those who looted the Baghdad museum, watched Palmyra, bombed and Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed. Yes the last act was by Taleban, creatures reared in the hundreds of Madrasas on the Pakistan side of the border, financed by the Saudis, trained by the ISI and armed by the US. Never forget Zbigniew Brzezinski’s words. “We were not worried about some stirred up Muslims” he said. “Our purpose was to defeat the Soviet Union.” This mission was achieved, but in the process were created Mujahideen/Taleban, the next target for the Military Industrial Complex, breeding Islamophobia, the driving force for more Talebanization and worse.

Biden’s speech on Afghan withdrawal has to be read in full. He has already set into motion the mother of all debates on foreign policy. “Foreign policy that emphasizes military restraint and diplomatic engagement and co-operation with other nations will serve American interests and values better than policies that prioritize the maintenance of global dominance through military means.” The new debate initiated by the Quincy Institute, is on these lines.

The focus, Biden said, will now be on “competition” with China and Russia. “And there is nothing China or Russia would rather have, would want more in this competition than the United States to be bogged down on another decade in Afghanistan.”

His amplification of this decision is refreshing. “The decision is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.”

The figures Biden furnished were known but the break up was an eye opener: $300 million per day for 20 years? 20,774 American servicemen/women injured and 2,461 killed. “We’ve been a nation too long at war; if you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.”

He cites what he rightly calls a “shocking and stunning statistic” for those who believe wars can be low risk or low cost: “18 veterans, on an average, die by suicide every single day in America.”

If Biden’s statement marks a sincere departure from recent American foreign excesses, America may well be on a path when it will recover its stature as a nation to be admired not feared. But those prone to dreaming such dreams too willingly must know how circumscribed a President’s power are. Barack Obama came to power swearing he would shut Guantanamo Bay as an “un American” facility. The facility till flourishes. A file for “eyes only” placed on the President’s table in the Oval office by the intelligence agencies will pulverize any President.

There is an expression in Persian: “Sahle mantane” which means incomprehensible in its simplicity. That is the kind of puzzle Afghanistan is today. On August 15, Taleban enter Kabul, an event touted as great victory over the US. On August 24, William Burns, CIA Director, is accorded a welcome by Taleban’s Abdul Ghani Baradar for “secret talks”. What on earth is going on? The existence of ISIS-K was known for years, why does military action take place only after 175 people including US servicemen have been killed by a suicide bomber outside Kabul airport?

Russia’s Permanent envoy to the UN Vassily Nebenzia was livid with US, UK, France, India for not accommodating his concerns about mass brain drain facilitated by the US airlift, and the freezing of Afghan assets. Is a scorched earth policy being pursued? Russia and China abstained from voting on the resolution on Afghanistan adopted by the UN Security Council.

Will the West squeeze the Taleban until the pips squeak? Another great game may well have begun at a time when Biden is singing a different tune. A riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma?

#          #          #          # 

Does US Humiliation In Afghanistan Spell Curtains On Forever Wars?

Does US Humiliation In Afghanistan Spell Curtains On Forever Wars?

                                                                                     Saeed Naqvi

The horrific terrorist attacks outside Kabul airport will boost chaos sky high. It will take focus away from the only frame in which the epochal events of the past few days should be seen. Did the US withdrawal, however messy, bring an end to the “forever wars”? Is that outcome to be welcomed? Or is this the time to analyze the “incompetence” of the Taleban? A people who defeated a superpower in battle should be given a little more than a fortnight to find their feet.

Or, is there an urge in wounded hearts for some rearguard action in order to pick up shreds of prestige blown to smithereens? A military response to the residual imperialist yearning, pulsating beneath the ashes, may well provide Afghans with an opportunity to measure upto Vietnam’s record. Vietnam defeated three permanent members of the Security Council in the battlefield: France at Dien Bien Phu, the US at Saigon, and China in Lang Son. Mujahideen Taleban have two scalps in their bag already – Soviet Union and the US. Another trophy for the Afghans, anybody?

It is ironical that Tony Blair’s has been the loudest yelp. “Imbecilic” to withdraw, he screamed. How thick a human skin can be? Just the other day Sir John Chilcot in his historic report grilled the illustrious British Prime Minister for dissembling facts leading Britain into a bogus Iraq war. “I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you will ever imagine” he wept.

Donald Trump asked Jimmy Carter, “What should we do, China is going ahead of us?” Carter’s reply was pithy: “China has not been at war since 1978; we have never stopped being at war.” Does this withdrawal spell an end to Imperial overreach?

Is there something akin to racism in the way TV images of Taleban in Kabul send shivers down our spine? How did we ever persuade ourselves that they are a ghastly lot? Who knows, they may well be but who has drilled this image so indelibly into our consciousness? Not our media, surely. Our “atmnirbhar”, or self-sufficient media take “foreign” news from Western agencies to a point of saturation. This shapes our mind and, to some extent, South Block’s too. Ofcourse our ambassador file reams of copy, but spring a surprise on them at work: they are all watching the same channels.

When Nick Robertson of the CNN froths in the mouth about the “thugs” which means Taleban in his book, the froth is sprayed all over our “atmnirbhar” channels. Christiane Amanpour grills former Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel on his support for Biden’s decision. “Are we giving up on terrorism? Is our project of democracy, human rights being abandoned?” in acute anxiety she rolls her eyeballs virtually out of their sockets.

Not just unfiltered information but even these attitudes are passed onto our TV viewers. A truly independent current affairs show is NDTV Hindi’s Prime Time, anchored by Ravish Kumar. But no sooner does this telecast end, than Ravish’s “atmnirbharta” is replaced by an Indian anchor in mini dress hosting a thoroughbred BBC episode. In other words NDTV has made available its platform to the BBC. The network where the elegant anchor gets her salary cheque from has a view of Taleban as “thugs”. She must therefore be expected to project a frightful Taleban even when her show is on Indian channel.

Painting Muslims in lurid colours has been a practice at least since the 70s when Muslim states surrounding Israel vigorously supported the Palestinian cause. Palestinian Professor at Columbia University, Edward Said’s “Covering Islam” has a jacket which is a collector’s item. It is a metaphor for the way Muslims are portrayed in the media. An Afghan militant, headgear et all, is crouching and taking aim with his Klashnikov. In the very frame is a western cameraman, resting a knee on the ground, clicking the gun-toting Afghan. This is how the image of a “militant Islamist” is manufactured.

It was prescient of Edward Said to have spotted the beginnings of manufactured Islamic militancy. This industry was to grow after the Soviet collapse and burgeon after 9/11. In terrorism the Military Industrial Complex found a durable replacement for the Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union.

Oh, the excuses that are being made for the debacle: we made the mistake of training the Afghan army in “our image”, like the US military. Really! Where the hell have all the soldiers gone, however wrongly trained, armed to the teeth? What were all those “Green on Blue” attacks when trainees turned upon their trainers, killing many. Did such attacks just end by divine intervention or embarrassing episodes just go away because the obedient media switches off its cameras?

Thumb through the files of the Guardian and locate the headline “US marines charged over urinating on bodies of dead Taleban.” Trump appointed Gina Haspel as the CIA chief specifically for her record in torture and rendition. He said on TV “torture works; torture works.” Afghans even the supine ones making money hand over fist with US contractors and even more with Ghani’s corrupt minions – would they fall in love with the Americans who built torture chambers, multiple Abu Ghraibs, crashing down doors and stripping families, humiliating them.

Even as I write Ben Roberts-Smith, of Australia’s Special Air Services regiment, who was awarded the Victoria Cross for duty in Afghanistan, was, until the other day, fighting with his back to the wall in an Australian court facing charges of atrocities on Afghan civilians. An internal investigation last year found Special Forces men “unlawfully killed” 39 Afghan civilians and prisoners. At least in Australia some limited processes were set into motion, but as for the US, let me quote George Bush the senior. “United States can do what the hell it wants.” If Biden’s withdrawal puts an end to actions which do not become America, history will judge him fairly. Dealing with Taleban is a separate matter.

#          #          #          #

From Beginning US Authored Events Leading To Humiliation In Kabul

From Beginning US Authored Events Leading To Humiliation In Kabul

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

Imperialism, which finally died in Afghanistan last week, had actually begun to hiccup in the mid 70s. Of this hiccupping, Vietnam was the most serious convulsion. In the wake of decolonization such eruptions had become commonplace, in Africa for instance, where the withdrawal of Portugal led to the direct ascent to power by communist parties in Angola and Mozambique. Then Mengistu appeared in Ethiopia; a little later Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Such an outcome had to be forestalled in Iran, South Asia region.

Ironically the Saur revolution, or the April coup of 1978 brought Afghan communists, Khalq and Parcham, to power. This epoch making event was a consequence of a botched up adventure instigated by US intelligence. The Shah of Iran’s notorious Savak took the operational lead. I was in Kabul for the first press conference by Noor Mohammad Taraki, the communist Prime Minister. My investigations on the Afghan coup appeared on the edit page of the Indian Express which had sent me to Kabul.

Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was embarked on securing a global order in which “regional influentials” would play a key role. The Shah, arch regional power in Brzezinski’s book, allowed Savak to clean up the stables in nearby Kabul where Mohammad Daud, a Marxist “numa” (look-alike) was leaning excessively on Moscow.

Diehard communists around Daud had to be eliminated. As happens in many intelligence operations, the plot hatched by Savak was leaked. Mir Akbar Khyber, a communist trade union leader, was inadvertently killed, alerting the communists across the country of the Savak plan.

In a preemptive move, military officers Aslam Watanjar and Abdul Qadir Dagarwal mobilized armoured carriers, drove into the Presidential Palace, killed Daud and his relatives. Communist took power.

Kabul under the Communists paved the way for the Soviets into the country. Once again, Brzezinski was in action. Peering into Afghanistan from the automatic “frontline state”, Pakistan, he began to think tactically towards a strategic end.

The US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan got into a huddle for their own purposes. The US would provide military training and hardware to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Saudis and the Pak establishment wanted this outcome too, but the two had key agendas of their own. Saudis would spends billions in the project to manufacture a kind of Arabized Islam to undermine the Shia Ayatullahs in Iran who had come to power just the previous year. It suited President Zia ul Haq of Pakistan. He was able to embark on his Nizam e Mustafa, or government based on Islamic laws. This would Arabize the country’s Islam and wrench it away from the “mumbo-jumbo” of secularism and composite culture being promoted in India. Had he lived, the social evolution of India would have pleased him.

Hundreds of Madrasas or seminaries came up on the Pakistan side of the border, hatcheries to breed the Mujahideen who eventually helped drive the Soviets out in 1989. True, a year later the Soviet Union fell but the departing Americans left behind unemployed Islamic militants who farmed out for work in Kashmir, Egypt, Algeria. The spiritual heirs in the diaspora of this brand of militancy were utilized most recently in the Syrian carnage.

All of this, in every detail, was lucidly exposed at a congressional hearing by Hillary Clinton. Her statement is still available on youtube. Some years ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Morgulov Igor Vladimirovich told a high powered Raisina Dialogue that Islamic militants from Syria were being airlifted to Northern Afghanistan. The following week, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatullah Khamenei repeated the allegation at a sermon following Friday prayers in Tehran. Is it true? Or has the narrative changed in the last few years?

In 1996, the Taleban, a progeny of the Mujahideen, fired by the kind of Islam instilled into them in the Madrasas, were once again boosted by the Americans. Others, including the section of South Block which had joined the US camp after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, acquiesced in the Taleban’s surge. The lemon sold to everybody was: Taleban will control Afghanistan and the US will control the Taleban. This co-ordination will facilitate UNOCAL’s TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline. After UNOCAL was sold to Chevron in 2005, the US found other reasons to stay on: Pakistan next door was too nuclear to be ignored; Uyghurs in Xinxiang and Muslim populations in the Caucasus looked like low hanging fruit, accessible from Afghan real estate. Priceless poppy in Helmand?

Founder of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden had made Afghanistan his headquarters since 1980 with a singular mission: to help the Taleban see the backs of the Soviets. Their occupation of a Muslim country was an insult to Islam. Once the Soviets had been driven out bin Laden set his sights on foreign soldiers and oil companies in his homeland. Bin Laden raised his banner of revolt against Riyadh, soon after Juhayman al-Otaybi and his al-Ikhwan group (an extremist cousin of Muslim Brotherhood) shook the Kingdom by occupying the mosque of Mecca for 20 days. The Saudi Royal family’s strong links with the Bush family was the backdrop for the clash of civilizations as soon as George W Bush entered the White House in January 2001. Eight months later 9/11 happened. Egged on by the neo-cons, the US occupied Afghanistan.

It is being made out that this is the first time that soldier trained by the Americans waged no battle against Taleban. What happened in Vietnam? Google C-Span and see Gen. Lloyd Austin, now Defence Secretary, being grilled by the Senate Armed Services Select Committee on a $500 million project to train Syrian militants.

“How many of our trainees are fighting?”

Huge pause. Austin: “four or five.”

Media neo cons will not give up. In a satirical piece Thomas Friedman of the New York Times expects the Taleban “the morning after the morning after” to turn up at the White House, turbans in hand. Please sir, take over our country once again.

#          #          #          #

Does Taleban Victory In Afghanistan Mean A Pak Triumph?

Does Taleban Victory In Afghanistan Mean A Pak Triumph?

                                                                                    Saeed Naqvi

 

It is a flawed line of thinking that Taleban victory in Afghanistan is somehow victory for Pakistan too. To the contrary, Pakistan’s problems begin now. Pushtoon populations on both sides of the border is just one of them. The failure of the Istanbul conference on Afghanistan reflects Pakistan’s inability to persuade the top Taleban leadership to attend what was billed as a 10 day jamboree. All participants, including President Ashraf Ghani, were expected to emerge having sorted out Afghanistan from A to Z.

Nothing of this happened. Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu came down a few notches in his boss, Tayyip Erdogan’s esteem. The Foreign Minister believed that Pakistan would deliver the Taleban at the conference. It could not.

Turkey’s willingness to “look after” Kabul airport was based on Ankara’s anticipation that, atleast in the interregnum, Ghani and Taleban would agree. Taleban would have none of it. Bring in mechanics, engineers and experts at handling airports, but no military presence “on Afghan soil”.

Describing Indo-Pak dynamics on Afghanistan as a zero-sum game has antecedents.

In 2010, General Stanley McChrystal, as the force commander in Afghanistan, was unhappy that the popularity of India’s socio-economic development work distracts Pakistan from its war-on-terror focus. To this, Gen. David Petraeus added his bit: “India’s Cold Start doctrine worries Pakistan.”

It is impossible for an itinerant journalist to gauge public opinion across the board, but my interactions in Kabul, Gardez and Mazar-e-Sharif some years ago surprised me: Pakistan was seen as a trouble maker. India’s development works were appreciated. At night all of Kabul was glued to Bollywood on TV.

After US Deputy Secretary, Richard Armitage threatened to “bomb Pakistan into the stone age” a terrified President Pervez Musharraf made a U-turn. His army turned upon exactly the mujahideen that Pakistan ISI had trained to see the back of the Soviets in 1989.

This about-turn by Pakistan became part of the historic memory of Taleban. That’s the rub: the “unreliability” quotient of Pakistan was cited even by Taleban spokesman who showed disinterest in the Istanbul conference.

There is a suspicion that promoting the Turkish profile in Afghanistan may well have been a Pak ploy to ensure a friendly nodal point, namely Kabul airport in the neighbouring country. Chatter on any high profile role for Ankara in Kabul is, for the moment, inaudible.

Abdus Salaam Zaeef was the Afghan ambassador in Islamabad and a friend of the late Mullah Omar. After Pakistan joined the war on terror, Zaeef found himself in Guantanamo Bay for four years. Zaeef was bitter: “the manner in which they treated our prisoners was worse than the Israeli treatment of Palestinian prisoners.” These plaints belong to an era many moons ago. Surely, the situation has changed after Prime Minister Imran Khan took charge. The Taleban today are not the ones who won in 1996. The new Taleban have Shia and Uzbek commanders too but keep your fingers crossed for the women of that country.

Like it or not, the Taleban are ascending. Ashraf Ghani, by all accounts has had it. Will he clamber onto the last helicopter out of Kabul? He is being maliciously mocked in this fashion. South Block probably knows the truth but is still clutching onto the myth of Ghani on the Kabul throne. It is short sighted to rubbish the Taleban. Let us face it, they will be dominant in any eventual power sharing. A harried Ghani has fired his army chief as if the chief was responsible for the Afghan National Army spreading out red carpets for the Taleban advancing with breathtaking speed into urban centres – in addition to the 70 percent of territory in their control. Taleban spokesman, Suhail Shahleen, told the BBC that districts fell because of mediation: Afghan soldiers refused to fight.

Was this collapse of a large section of the Afghan Army unexpected? Is one to believe that Green on Blue attacks had ended just because the US media had stopped reporting such incidents? US officers training the Afghan army were frequent victims of their own trainees. Little wonder President Joe Biden was almost bitter: “I don’t regret the decision to withdraw.” He said the US had spent $3 trillion for 20 years training and equipping an Afghan army of 3,00,000. “Now it is time for the Afghans to sort it out among themselves.”

Years ago, a former Governor of Balkh, Prof. Habibullah Habib, told me a story which sounded conspiratorial then. “The British Provincial Reconstruction team was doing excellent work in the north of the country.” Why did they so willingly agree to vacate the peaceful region for the Germans to take over? What surprised Prof. Habib even more was the alternative destination selected by the British contingent. “They chose to be headquartered in the troubled province of Helmand – why?

Prof. Habib’s question may well have been answered two days ago by a former British Defence Minister, Johnny Mercer, who served in Afghanistan: “A lot of British blood was spilled in Helmand.” He asks angrily: “Was it really for nothing?” Helmand, it must not be forgotten, is the world’s largest centre for poppy production which blossomed in 20 years of the war.

His colleague, another Defence Minister, Tobias Elwood has gone one better; he wants Afghanistan re invaded. “Britain must step up and show international leadership, convene a conference of like minded states and get a plan in place to deliver effective military support. If we don’t, everything we fought for since 2001 will be lost.”

The Mercer-Elwood duo revive images of Laurel and Hardy in frayed army uniform looking after a giant warehouse packed with canned food. News of the armistice has not reached the two, surrounded by mountains of opened cans which have been their only source for food. A bi plane flies low and the pilot asks them what they were doing.

“We are incharge of the war’s biggest canteen” Hardy says.

“But the war ended years ago.”

As Bobby Talyarkhan used to end his columns, “do you get me Steve?”

#          #          #          #