Building an Empire in Asia? by William Pfaff

Building an Empire in Asia?

William Pfaff
2010/2/13 : http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=46


Paris, February 10, 2010 – Richard Holbrooke’s comments on “reconciliation’ with the Taliban in Afghanistan, made during the recent Munich security conference, echoed earlier remarks by UN officials and American military commanders in Kabul which suggest that diplomacy might be coming alive on the Afghan front. This could be true despite, or as a calculated accompaniment to the new NATO offensive that is being launched in southern Afghanistan -- this time with the intention to conquer and remain for good in the territory occupied.

For it to succeed, however, it has enormous obstacles to overcome, the first is that neither Pentagon nor the White House seem yet to have clearly identified what the United States wants in Afghanistan. To capture the al Qaida leadership? Or to defeat that Taliban and create a client government there?

President Barack Obama is at war in Afghanistan because it is the “right” war to fight. This is because it is where al Qaeda supposedly has its headquarters. But the president seems also to have become convinced that his real objective should be to stabilize or secure Pakistan as well as Afghanistan because of the former’s nuclear weapons. This is an entirely different objective. The highly nationalistic Pakistan army is already hostile to the U.S.

Do he and the Pentagon have still another military intervention in mind? Washington is committed in Afghanistan. Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iran. Iraq could blow up this spring because of scheduled elections and attempts by Shi’ite government figures to disqualify Sunni candidates accused of Ba’ath party connections. An involvement in Pakistan would indirectly involve India.

A former colleague of mine from the world of strategic studies said in a recent letter that on a Washington visit he could find no one among his acquaintances at the National Security Council who could give him a coherent explanation of what the United States is actually doing in Afghanistan.

Obviously there is a plan on paper: Defeat and neutralize al Qaida. But whatever al Qaeda consists of in Afghanistan today – leaders, a staff, arms, training areas for volunteers? -- can leave the country whenever it decides to do so. The essential elements could probably depart with a few hours’ notice, while the rest scatter.

But the U.S. is laboriously building up a multi-national military operational force with attendant bases – 700 in all, by latest report – with the infrastructure and (highly vulnerable) lines of supply that are necessary. This seemingly is just to defeat the Taliban effort to take back control of Afghanistan. The U.S. is doing this to defend the elected government in Kabul against their internal political and ethnic enemies. Why? Can’t the present Afghan leadership defend itself? Or make its own deal with the Pashtun majority in the country, where the Taliban have found their support?

U.S. military action to defeat the Taliban has not been a great success. Nor does Afghanistan offer the terrain for the classic seize and hold strategy of orthodox armies confronted with guerrillas and terrorists.

The unorthodox weapon President Obama seems to like best, the unmanned drone bomber, by all accounts has the collateral effect of bitterly alienating the population whose support the U.S. seeks to win.

Richard Holbrooke, a man of political astuteness, said at the recent Berlin security meeting that he regretted that in the past year “the reconciliation” of the Taliban has been “neglected.” He said that this year American generals hope to to “separate” the Taliban from their existing relationship with the ordinary Pashtun people, among whom they live and find protection.

Holbrooke’s interest in reconciliation brings to mind the strategy General David Petraeus applied in Iraq, where he dealt with the tribal leadership to foster the Sunni “Awakening” movement, through which the U.S. paid the Sunni tribes to provide security in difficult areas.

Last week it was reported in Afghanistan that one of the largest Afghan tribal groups, the Shinwari, has apparently turned against the Taliban (supposedly for reasons of their own). A million dollars in development funds has now been promised by the U.S. in payment directly to the tribal leaders. This is a fragile gain for the anti-Taliban cause, but very much what General McChrystal wants to see. American officials are talking about greatly enlarged tribal subsidies to provide jobs and economic security.

The objection here is that this may buy loyalty to the U.S Army or to NATO units but not to the central government in Kabul, which is dominated by ethnic rivals of the Pashtuns, and is allegedly corrupt.

Present government policy is that Taliban defectors must swear allegiance to the government, which is often unacceptable, since collaboration with either side is usually a family affair. Buying the tribes doesn’t resolve political conflict in the country because the Americans inevitably will (someday) go home.

U.S. and UN officials have claimed that Taliban leaders met the top UN figure in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, at a location in one of the Gulf states, although the story (unsurprisingly) has been denied.

The fate of al Qaeda aside, a negotiated settlement to the Afghanistan conflict is unlikely and possibly impossible without the involvement and support of neighboring countries with ethnic links to Afghan minorities, including – notably – Iran as well as Pakistan and India. All would expect withdrawal of U.S. troops. It is foolish to think that a settlement can be found that leaves the U.S. in control.

Is that acceptable to the United States? If not, why not? What permanent interest, requiring permanent U.S. bases, does the United States have in these countries in Central and Southern Asia? This is a key issue, and the public has a right to have a clear statement from the president. The United States went into Afghanistan to find al Qaeda, not to rule Asia.

© Copyright 2010 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.