Pakistan: Neither unwilling nor unable in Tirah Valley

By Zoon Ahmad Khan
SPEARHEAD RESEARCH

Tirah is a belt of valleys providing a convenient passage into Afghanistan, with a population of 1.5 million. Fertile for what Afghanis do best: opium, poppy fields have flourished in the region and the government has been for years trying to curb the epidemic. But the Tirah Valley people are slippery under the quivering thumb of the establishment since colonial times. It was in 2003 that the Pakistan Army entered the valley, that too after 9/11 and escalating Talibanization of the northern region when it was believed that Osama bin Laden could be hiding in one of these self governing regions.

For a month now, since March 2013, Tirah Valley has been making headlines. As over 300 militants have been eliminated and more than 30 army personnel have achieved martyrdom in less than thirty days. Due to fierce resistance, the military operation has gained momentum. Like the Swat operation, where Taliban had allied themselves with the local government promising better law enforcement and good riddance from the sloppy civil courts, in Tirah the emergence of TTP has also been gradual. Owing to poor infrastructure and isolation of the region (a tribal area that avoids foreign interference), news of the hundreds killed while resisting TTPs advancement in to the region, never reached mainstream media sources.

Three militant outfits are operating in the region presently: Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Islam (LI), and Ansar ul Islam (AI) . The AI and LI have been battling with each other in the region for more than seven years over sectarian differences. When the LI joined hands with the TTP, AI reached out to the Pakistan army to protect its position against its adversary. It is noteworthy that the AI, a militant organization, has previously been banned for protecting the area from foreign influence (i.e. the government). How this support for the AI is any different from that of the Taliban back in the 1980s is not clear. For Pakistan, at the moment, fighting the Taliban is more crucial. What demons this war gives birth to can be dealt with later perhaps.

The TTP has not taken over the valley overnight, nor without assistance. Since last June, one step at a time the Tirah tribes have been coming under their fold. Even today, as the army marches against the Taliban with bursting force, launching aerial assaults to drive the Taliban out, few know the gravity of the situation. Few realize the dire consequences of this belt coming under full control of anti-state outfits. Thousands of the valley’s inhabitants have migrated out of their homes towards Peshawar. What will become of them and their families knowing the situation of IDPs amidst a fragile economy is another burden we are temporarily ignoring for a false peace of mind.

With three vital entry points: into Peshawar, Orakzai and the Khyber Pass (the main passageway for NATO supplies) the valley is an important stronghold for the TTP. With no road access, the army was initially only relying on aerial assaults. So far with scanty news, all we get a few days later is a death count of militants versus soldiers. Nothing about civilian casualties. Turns out we have an alternative for the drone strikes that have caused much discord between us and the United States. But the problems with an operation where only Pakistani blood is being spilt are manifold.

These quandaries can take the shape of a thought process. Firstly, Tirah was not above the regular drone drill. Rather the area has been a frequent target. Yet the LI joined hands with the Taliban, killed hundreds of civilians while fighting the local AI, took over the entire region over the course of a year. All of this while drone strikes were happening with unhampered discretion. Should this not make us question the effectiveness of drone strikes? The AI , temporary partner of the Government of Pakistan in this operation, is not our friend either. It is these temporary alliances with local militant outfits, and keeping our enemies ‘closer’ that has strengthened them to begin with. Before the Taliban took over completely, Ansar-ul-Islam were adamant that they could handle the situation. But with stiff resistance from TTP backed LI. Eventually the Pakistan army was forced to step in and save the region. The main question that arises from such situations is: why should we trust the security of such volatile and strategically important regions with militias who are not completely supportive of the government?

Initially when the wave of conflict erupted last month, media and ISPR reported that two militant groups were at war with each other and the death toll from both sides was being reported as “militant death toll”. TTP extended full support to LI, and AI was almost driven out of the region and increased TTP influence in the region was becoming evident. It was at this point when civilian casualties escalated and mass migration from the Tirah Valley started that the army stepped in. With General Elections only days away, it would have been catastrophic if hundreds of thousands of inhabitants of the valley had become IDPs. Additionally with Peshawar well within the range of rocket launchers the threat of TTP advancement in to the developed regions of the country had become too real. The AI-Army alliance is strategic and passing. Whether the army death toll includes the AI, or they aren’t dying at all is not certain. It is possible that the militant death include the AI, TTP, and LI, which would quite literally be true.

The new tagline for justifying drone strikes is ‘Unwilling and Unable’. The US claims that Pakistan is both, unwilling and unable to get rid of terrorists, and hence drones, are a final resort to secure their own national interest is justified. How they come up with new justifications for overstepping the boundaries and disrespecting sovereignty is fascinating. But after delegating the responsibility of keeping the terrorists out to anti-state elements, who haven’t pledged any loyalties to the region, what can we say about Pakistan’s sovereignty? Some argue that more than delegating authority the military and political establishments’ apparent absence was more about respecting the existing status quo that has been for centuries.

The expanding terrorism in the Northern areas can be solved not by drone attacks or killing the terrorists alone, rather by better law enforcement and presence of state sponsored security. The operation that Pakistan army troops are sacrificing their lives for concerns the US’ national security as well. After the drone method has proven ineffective and immoral both countries should look into alternatives. The US needs to decide: in or out? If out then they should completely rely on what the Pakistan army executes. But if they believe we are unwilling and unable then they must join in any battle against the Taliban, even if some blood will be spilt. But this would mean allowing US troops into our territory, and that is another breach of our sovereignty. And hence the dearth of solutions. As the army continues to sacrifice lives, while we acknowledge the courage it takes to execute such an operation, we must realize these lives and those of the civilians can be saved if preventive measures are taken. The upcoming government must get all local and foreign stakeholders on board and strategize better governance in the northern areas of Pakistan. The gun is only a temporary solution.

Top Haqqani Commander Killed in NATO Strike

A week after the senior Haqqani network leader in Afghanistan was captured, a coalition airstrike killed one of his associates, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said on Wednesday.

Dilawar, known by one name, died in the Musa Khel district of eastern Afghanistan’s Khost province on Tuesday in what ISAF called “another significant milestone in the disruption of the Haqqani network.” Two other militants were killed in what was an Afghan-coalition operation, ISAF said.

Dilawar was a “senior Haqqani leader” and “a principal subordinate” to Haji Mali Khan, whose capture in Paktia province last Tuesday was hailed as a blow against the network, widely regarded as one of the most effective militant groups in Afghanistan.

Western officials believe the Haqqanis were involved in the assassination last month of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chairman of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, and a June attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul.

Dilawar planned attacks with Mali Khan, including an ambush on Afghan forces in Paktia last month.

“Dilawar operated along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, between the Khost and Paktia provinces, where he actively coordinated numerous attacks against Afghan forces and facilitated the movement of weapons. Dilawar also facilitated the movement of foreign fighters and was associated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” ISAF said.

ISAF said security forces have conducted more than 530 operations this year “to disrupt Haqqani network activities in eastern Afghanistan. It said the effort led to the deaths of 20 network leaders and the capture of more than 1,400 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Khan is the uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani — the brothers who lead the network — and worked directly under Siraj, managing bases and overseeing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The network was founded by Siraj Haqqani’s father with Pakistani backing to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Today, the group is believed to maintain ties with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Top Haqqani Commander Killed in NATO Strike

A week after the senior Haqqani network leader in Afghanistan was captured, a coalition airstrike killed one of his associates, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said on Wednesday.

Dilawar, known by one name, died in the Musa Khel district of eastern Afghanistan’s Khost province on Tuesday in what ISAF called “another significant milestone in the disruption of the Haqqani network.” Two other militants were killed in what was an Afghan-coalition operation, ISAF said.

Dilawar was a “senior Haqqani leader” and “a principal subordinate” to Haji Mali Khan, whose capture in Paktia province last Tuesday was hailed as a blow against the network, widely regarded as one of the most effective militant groups in Afghanistan.

Western officials believe the Haqqanis were involved in the assassination last month of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chairman of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, and a June attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul.

Dilawar planned attacks with Mali Khan, including an ambush on Afghan forces in Paktia last month.

“Dilawar operated along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, between the Khost and Paktia provinces, where he actively coordinated numerous attacks against Afghan forces and facilitated the movement of weapons. Dilawar also facilitated the movement of foreign fighters and was associated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” ISAF said.

ISAF said security forces have conducted more than 530 operations this year “to disrupt Haqqani network activities in eastern Afghanistan. It said the effort led to the deaths of 20 network leaders and the capture of more than 1,400 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Khan is the uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani — the brothers who lead the network — and worked directly under Siraj, managing bases and overseeing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The network was founded by Siraj Haqqani’s father with Pakistani backing to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Today, the group is believed to maintain ties with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Redrawing the Map: the Balkanization of Pakistan

By Stuartbramhall

If Pakistan is an Ally, Why Are We Trying to Break Up Their Country?

After ten years of fighting unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many Americans recognize that the wars in the Middle East are really about oil and natural gas, rather than terrorism. Bush’s decision to invade Afghanistan (instead of Saudi Arabia – the 911 hijackers were Saudi) stemmed from the Taliban refusal to construct an Afghanistan pipeline transporting Turkmenistan oil to Pakistan and the Arabian sea (where it could be loaded onto US tankers). Likewise the decision to invade 17 months later (which had no connection whatsoever with 911 or Al Qaeda) seems linked to Saddam Hussein’s threat to crash the US dollar by trading Iraqi oil in Euros instead of dollars. Under Obama, the “war on terror” has shifted eastward to Pakistan. Yet there’s no reason to believe the strategic objectives for US military intervention in Pakistan are any different from the ones that led us to invade Afghanistan and Iraq – namely strategic control of energy resources.

Balkinization Defined

Although the subject receives little attention in the US media, various Pentagon analysts have been quite public about the strategic importance of energy and mineral rich Balochistan (a Pakistan province bordering Afghanistan and comprising 44% of the country’s geographic area) as an energy transit route. Several aggressively promote the “balkanization” of Pakistan. “Balkanization” is a term widely attributed to Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1998 book The Grand Chessboard. It was one actively pursued by the Pentagon and CIA under Clinton in breaking up the former Yugoslavia, enabling US access to oil, natural gas and mineral resources in the former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

At present the immediate Pentagon/CIA goal is to create a Free Balochistan, which would incorporate the Pakistan province of Balochistan, a sizable swath of Iran that was originally part of independent Balochistan and part of Afghanistan. In fact since 2006, the Pentagon has made no secrete of their desire to Pakistan Balochistan (which has a strong separatist movement) secede from Pakistan to become a US client state (like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan). It has cropped up in speeches by Condi Rice, in articles published by military journals and Pentagon think tanks and in trainings of senior military officers at the National War Academy and NATO’s Defense College.

Redrawing the Middle East

Condi Rice’s 2006 speech about “redrawing the Middle East” received the most attention in the US: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=3882. The international press has been more interested in a 2006 article by Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters of the Pentagon’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence Armed Forces Journal. They are most concerned about a map he has drawn, which he has copyrighted, showing the Baloch areas of Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan joined as Free Balochistan (and reducing the size of Pakistan by 50%). http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

Robert Wirsing of the US Army think tank Strategic Studies Institute, has published a similar analysis:Baloch Nationalism and the Geopolitics of Energy Resources: Context of Separatism in Pakistan(http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub853.pdf). (other references regarding Pentagon strategy in Balochistan can be found in Alexander Achmatowicz’ guest post athttp://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/09/29/balochistan-the-place-to-watch/ )

Map of Free Balochistan © Ralph Peters 2006

Peters, Wirsing and other military strategists argue the primary benefits of establishing Free Balochistan as a US client state would be

securing Central Asian energy resources for the continental US.
blocking Chinese access to these resources (via the Chinese-built Gwadar Port in Gwadar, Pakistan – China’s chief conduit for Iranian oil).
destabilizing Iran (which also has a sizable Baloch population seeking independence).

Enter Our CIA Freedom Fighters

Ironically the CIA also seems to endorse this strategy, at least indirectly, in a report predicting that Pakistan will be a failed state by 2015 (http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2005/02/pak-will-be-failed-state-by-2015-cia.html). For obvious reasons, the report doesn’t spell out the critical role they intend to play in Pakistan’s demise, via their systematic efforts to destabilize the Pakistan government (e.g. using CIA agents like Raymond Davis to support Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists) and separating off 50% of its territory as Free Balochistan.

Nevertheless, according to an explosive 2006 expose by investigative journalists at the London Institute of South Asia (http://www.lisauk.com/baluchistan.asp), this is exactly what the CIA has been doing since 2002, when it set up the first training camp to revive the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). The London Institute indicates the CIA is collaborating in this effort with RAW (Indian intelligence), who have extensive spy networks throughout Pakistan and Afghanistan, and RAD (Russian intelligence), who started the BLA in 1980 during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and provide most of the weapons.

To be continued, with a discussion of the history of Balochistan and the KGB role in the formation of the BLA.

US in its true colours

That the US has prepared secret scorecards of Pakistan’s performance in the war on terror to assess whether it is really extending the required cooperation to the US, before any security assistance could be given to it, shows Washington in its true colours and exposes the hoax of “lasting friendship” the American leaders have been glibly talking about since 9/11. After all, the US is in the process of packing up in Afghanistan and as there is little point in the superpower currying favour with a country whose help would no longer be required after the US withdrawal, it believes it is time to prepare the ground for moving away from it. For the role of region’s policeman, Washington has opted for India, which has, apparently, taken upon itself the role of keeping any eruption of disturbances in Afghanistan under check after the US troops had left and has also promised to serve as a bulwark against the expansion of Chinese power and influence. Though the State Department has, in a statement, confirmed the US media report about conditional aid, the ISI has denied that it has been presented with any wish-list and rightly maintained that it was Pakistan’s prerogative to decide how to combat terrorism and conduct relations with Afghanistan. Under no circumstances should Islamabad compromise on its national interests in trying to be on the right side of the US because that could enable it to receive the promised aid unhindered. Reportedly, four separate scorecards cover different areas of cooperation in: exploiting the bin Laden compound; the war in Afghanistan; conducting joint counterterrorism operations; and improving the overall tone in bilateral relations.

In the meantime, the American and British media has floated a story that Pakistan, peeved at CIA contractor Raymond Davis’ murdering two Pakistanis and the unilateral raid at Abbottabad, has let the Chinese experts take photographs of the tail of the stealth helicopter destroyed during the raid. Readers familiar with the media hype about the fake story of the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of President Saddam Hussein to justify attack on Iraq would understand that the ‘Chinese inspection of helicopter’s tail’ is nothing but a part of propaganda blitz of the US whose tool its media is ever ready to serve.

The conditional aid and the flimsy charge of the Chinese taking photographs of the helicopter tail are part of the pressure tactics to make Pakistan fall in line. This is the time to resist such pressure and adopt the policy of self-reliance, dispensing with foreign handouts. Our rulers should swallow the bitter pill of a sharp cut in expenditure for running the government, practise strict austerity and impose taxes on agriculture and the rich to make up for the shortfall caused by the stoppage of the US aid, but under no circumstances follow the American agenda.

US helicopter crashed in Taliban trap: Afghan official

PULI ALAM, Afghanistan – The Taliban lured US forces into an elaborate trap to shoot down their helicopter, killing 30 American troops in the deadliest such incident of the war, an Afghan official said Monday.

US Army soldiers and Afghan National Army soldiers race to get out of the way of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter landing

US President Barack Obama pledged that the incident — which killed 38 people — would not keep foreign forces from prevailing in Afghanistan, and the Pentagon called the downing of the Chinook a “one-off” that would not alter US strategy.

The late Friday attack marked the biggest single loss of life for American and NATO forces since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban in late 2001, shortly after the September 11 attacks.

The loss of the Chinook during an anti-Taliban operation southwest of Kabul dealt a blow to elite US special forces, which had 25 members on board — 22 US Navy SEAL commandos and three Air Force Special Operations Forces.

Five US Army personnel, seven Afghan commandos and an interpreter also died.

A senior Afghan government official told AFP on condition of anonymity that Taliban commander Qari Tahir lured US forces to the scene by tipping them off that a Taliban meeting was taking place.

He also said four Pakistanis helped Tahir carry out the strike.

“Now it’s confirmed that the helicopter was shot down and it was a trap that was set by a Taliban commander,” said the official, citing intelligence gathered from the area.

“The Taliban knew which route the helicopter would take,” he continued.

“That’s the only route, so they took position on the either side of the valley on mountains and as the helicopter approached, they attacked it with rockets and other modern weapons. It was brought down by multiple shots.”

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorised to discuss the issue, also said President Hamid Karzai’s US-backed government “thinks” the attack was retaliation for the May killing of Osama bin Laden.

The Taliban themselves did not make such an assertion on claiming responsibility for the attack, which took place in the Taliban-infested Sayd Abad district of Wardak province.

In Washington, Obama said the loss of the 30 American troops would motivate their colleagues.

“I know that our troops will continue the hard work of transitioning to a stronger Afghan government and ensuring that Afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. We will press on and succeed,” the US president said.

Colonel Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said he would “caution people against reading too much into a single combat incident.”

“At this point, it’s a one-off incident,” he told reporters, adding it did not amount to “any kind of watershed or trend.”

“We still have the Taliban on the run. We’ve reversed the momentum that they had but they’re still going to inflict casualties,” Lapan said.

When questioned about whether the attack was linked to a trap laid by a Taliban commander, the militia’s spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said: “We have used various tactics over the past 10 years. This could also be a tactic.”

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said the cause of the crash was still being investigated but issued a statement giving details of the moments before the fatal incident.

“The operation began as a security search for a Taliban leader responsible for insurgent operations in the nearby Tangi Valley,” it said.

The first wave of ISAF ground troops then exchanged fire with insurgents, killing several of them.

“As the insurgents continued to fire, the combined force on the ground requested additional forces to assist the operation,” the statement added.

“Those additional personnel were inbound to the scene when the CH-47 (Chinook) carrying them crashed, killing all on board.”

Afghan officials said an insurgent rocket downed the helicopter, which was said to have broken into several parts after being hit.

In eastern Afghanistan on Monday, another helicopter made a “hard landing” in Paktya province, although no one was injured and there were no reports of insurgent fire, ISAF said.

There are currently around 140,000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, including about 100,000 US troops.

All international combat troops are due to leave by the end of 2014, but intense violence in recent months, including a series of assassinations in the south, has raised questions about the capability of Afghan forces.

America-Pakistan-India Triangle

Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, who ironically enjoys the reputation of being American ambassador to Pakistan, based in Washington, has recently quipped, “The most hated country in Pakistan is our top trading partner, top aid donor, top weapon supplier and top remittance source”.

Significant reason behind this anomaly is the snowballing India-US nexus at the cost of Pakistan. De-hyphenating of India-Pakistan in American strategic calculus has indeed created more problems for America and this region than it intended to resolve. Obsession to sponsor the rise of India as a major player on Asian geopolitical canvas has severely curtailed American leverage over India; Obama dare not pronounce ‘K’ for Kashmir once again!

Barrack Obama’s visit to India had left a negative impact on the whole region which has been reinforced by Hillary’s recent rhetoric. By prompting India to bite more than it could chew, America is well on its way to sow the seeds of perpetual destabilization of this region at the expense of China as well as India itself.

While in the past America played effective role to diffuse Pak-India tensions and did not allow the matters to degenerate into tactical showdown, it also winked its eye to allow India maintain strategic pressures through military deployments, diplomatic manoeuvres and resource squeezing.

Pakistan and America differ considerably on issues of vital interest to Pakistan; nuclear policy, energy acquisition from Iran and China, end game in Afghanistan, Kashmir conflict etc are some major areas of divergence. Most of these issues are intricately liked to India. Hence a Pakistan-India-America triangle has emerged; a sort of re-hyphenation in a crude form.

America retains a cunning balancing leverage between India and Pakistan; and uses the pressure points aptly to make Pakistan and India do American bidding.

Recently the US lawmakers have rejected the bill regarding stoppage of aid to Pakistan but have agreed to attach strings. Public opinion is gaining strength that stringed aid may be refused and to make up for the loss, Pakistan should proportionately enhance the transit fee on American supply containers and also impose transit fee on aircraft destined for Afghan war zone through Pakistan.

America frequently partners Indian effort in maintaining a high pitched tirade against Pakistan’s armed force and the ISI; this has scaled new heights since the cowardly Abbottabad attack. All guns are being directed against Pakistan. Political leadership is being spared of any wrong doing with a clear objective of creating a wedge between the political and military echelons of national leadership.

Timed with Hillary’s recent visit, Americans took a well calculated step to appease India by arresting Kashmiri American Council President, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai. Indian reaction was of joy. Arrest is a setback to the legitimate rights of the people of Kashmir, specially their struggle for self-determination. Pakistani government showed an angry response. Foreign office announced that “A demarche was made to the US embassy in Islamabad to register the concerns, in particular the slander campaign against Pakistan.”

To mitigate the defeat in Afghanistan, the US is working overtime to shift the blame for every wrong to Pakistan. To consolidate towards this end, America is all set to involve India in Afghanistan, militarily. While in India, Hillary Clinton sought to reassure India that the United States has no plan to cut and run when it comes to Afghanistan. Indeed Hillary was bluffing,

those familiar with Obama administration’s thinking are of the view that White House wants to be able to point to concrete achievements in the country in the run-up to 2012 elections, while wrapping things up in Afghanistan “at any cost”.

In the context of terrorism, India needs to understand that militants are well-organised from Somalia to Afghanistan and from Central Asian Republics to the Occupied Kashmir.

International security analysts are already predicting that India is on the brink of becoming a battle ground of these trans-national groups. Outreach of these elements is much broader than Pakistan’s logical capacity to handle them; even America is unable to contain them. Pakistan has already proposed setting up of SAARC police for pooling up regional resources for this purpose.

Hillary Clinton played another pressure card by projecting India as the leading power in Asia. This effort was launched to coax India into a proxy role to counterbalance China. Hillary called upon India to become a more assertive leader in Asia, in South-East Asia, the Pacific Rim, in Central Asia and Pacific Ocean.

The fact is that India is having a hard time holding its own in its immediate neighbourhood, as China is expanding its links with Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Nepal. Hence, to expect India to match China in South-East Asia and the Pacific Rim, where China has built-in advantages, is a pipe dream. India will remain cautious while siding with Americans against the Chinese. It needs China’s nod to realise its aspiration for a permanent UNSC berth.

Under these settings, the fate of Pak-India foreign minister level talks was correctly pre-judged by the analysts of India and Pakistan. There was unanimity of opinion that parleys would remain at the cosmetic level, routines would be discussed and core issues would be sidestepped. Travel, trade, terrorism etc would be in forefront; water and Kashmir in the background.

Mumbai would be highlighted and ‘Samjhota Express’ would get a passing mention. Matters have moved the same way. Nevertheless, some functional dialogue process is always better than none.

In an upbeat assessment after their meeting, Indian Foreign Minister said ties were back “on the right track,” while Pakistani Foreign Minister spoke of a “new era” of cooperation. Nevertheless, there was little in the way of substantive agreements to back up the general mood of optimism. Joint statement was monotonous, envisaging a general bilateral effort to combat terrorism, increase trade and keep the peace dialogue going.

One must understand that now America is in the driving seat of Pak-India interactions; talks are likely to follow the pattern of ‘sound good solve nothing’. After all America has a long experience of sponsoring futile dialogue like process between Palestine and Israel. It remains for India and Pakistan not to get locked into a zero sum game. Both countries need to strengthen their bilateral institutions to absorb the sporadic crises and move on.

U.S. Soldier Found Guilty Of Killing Afghan Civilian

A U.S. National Guardsman who shot an Afghan electrician in the head at close range last year has been found guilty of premeditated murder.

Officials say that Sergeant Derrick Miller will be sentenced in the near future.

Prosecutors had argued that Miller shot and killed Atta Mohammed in September in Masamute Bala, Afghanistan, with a Beretta pistol.

They said Miller took another soldier’s weapon, straddled the man on the ground, and then shot him.

Miller is a member of a Connecticut National Guard unit that is attached to Fort Campbell, home to the 101st Airborne Division, which is now being rotated home from Afghanistan.

The 2014 endgame

By Sabina Khan

US President George W Bush had said right after 9/11 that God had told him to invade Afghanistan. Ironically, this righteous claim sounds similar to the ones made by terrorists under the pretence of jihad. After ten years of war to install a democratic government and free the men and women in the conflict ridden country, what has actually been accomplished in Afghanistan? Is the world a safer place now that the US is preparing to withdraw their forces? Has terrorism been eradicated? As the 2014 troop withdrawal deadline nears, these questions deserve consideration.

In response to the 9/11 attacks, Bush called for an invasion of Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s sanctuary. Long-term objectives of the effort comprised establishing a democracy and eliminating circumstances which led to terrorism. Being unable to convince the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, the US strategy evolved to include killing and capturing their leaders, Mullah Omar being high on that list. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban insurgency picked up and the death toll began to increase. Opium production flourished during this period as there were few other sources of income.

When US President Barack Obama took power in 2008, he shifted the focus back to Afghanistan and redefined the objectives. In 2009, he deployed an additional 30,000 troops and stated that his goal in Afghanistan was to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda”. In 2009, Defence Secretary Robert Gates stated that “at a minimum, the mission is to prevent the Taliban from retaking power… and turning Afghanistan potentially again into a haven for al Qaeda and other extremists”.

In his recent speech, Obama announced that 33,000 troops are being withdrawn by the summer of 2012 and that transition of power to Afghan security forces will be complete by 2014. Currently, Afghanistan’s newly-formed military consists of 150,000 soldiers but their ranks are scheduled to swell up to 260,000 in time for the 2014 deadline. Despite Nato’s efforts to train Afghan soldiers to read and write at the third grade level, almost 90 per cent of the recruits in the Afghan military are illiterate. High levels of desertion and infiltration also plague the Afghan security forces, which adds another aspect of uncertainty with the transition of power. Moreover, several insurgent groups remain firmly established in Kunar and Nuristan provinces, which border Pakistan’s tribal areas. Consequently, cross-border incidents have risen between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Several hundred militants crossed into Pakistan and conducted attacks in Upper Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand. In retaliation, Pakistan fired rockets on the border to target militants crossing over. Needless to say, relations between the two neighbours are troublesome.

This September marks ten years since the atrocious events of 9/11. Bin Laden is dead but al Qaeda remains very much alive. Conflict has spilled into Pakistan with death and destruction becoming a daily part of life. Meanwhile, the US has come full-circle and is now negotiating with the Taliban and preparing to allow them back into the official government. A recent and well-timed UN resolution draws distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban. The pretext being that the Taliban only focus on conducting attacks in their own country unlike al Qaeda who carries out attacks worldwide. Thus, the Taliban have been removed from the UN sanctions list in order to help the US with their reconciliation efforts. These games do little to conceal the fact that the Afghan government is corrupt and poor. On top of that, their security forces can switch sides at any moment if enticed with money or threats. Despite the US government’s desire to keep Pakistan separate from their negotiations with the Taliban, it is time to face reality, the situation along the porous border remains and will continue to be a challenge for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hence, a comprehensive regional solution is required for long-term peace instead of a rushed secret backdoor deal which will certainly be short-lived. Our neighbour has been in a state of continuous conflict since the late 1970s. The ultimate resolution involves education and economic development, which entails long-term dedication and commitment from interested parties that are directly affected by the war in Afghanistan.

Pendulum of war

IN the past couple of weeks, Al Qaeda and its franchises have come back with a vengeance, attacking Pakistan, its security forces and the public. This also appears to be a prelude to an increase in violence in Afghanistan in the near future.

An important aspect of these new series of attacks is their concentration on Islamabad, Peshawar and locations along the Durand Line. In their latest onslaughts on urban centres, militants have used both improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers. Clearly, the militants are in good health and pose a serious existential threat to Pakistan.

The new attacks are significant in that they convey a message to Pakistan and the combined forces of more than 43 nations deployed in Afghanistan, that the recent loss of Osama bin Laden and one of Al Qaeda`s foremost commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, have not stripped it of its fighting abilities. The attacks also reflect the resilience and institutional capacity of the second tier of the insurgent team which is proving itself adept at meeting new challenges.Another factor that has added significance to the recent militant activity is the capacity of Al Qaeda and its various branches in Pakistan and Afghanistan to carry out multiple border incursions, as seen in Dir, Kurram and South Waziristan, within a short span of time.

Add these capacities to the assumed presence of militant cells within the Pakistani security services and serious questions are raised about whether the strategy followed so far in dealing with the militants is actually effective. The militants` ability to field insurgent groups of up to 300 men, as seen in the two recent attacks on Dir in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is worrying.

According to local officials, a Taliban force of more than 200 fighters who were armed with light and heavy weapons and some of whom wore military uniforms attacked a police station in Shaldalo village of Upper Dir on June 1. The incursion was resisted by the Pakistani police and paramilitary forces and the engagement lasted several hours. Pakistani helicopter gunships took part in forcing back the militants – 23 security personnel were killed and the Taliban are said to have suffered casualties, but no dead bodies were recovered.

The Taliban had earlier launched a similar attack on April 22, when more than 400 fighters attacked a police post in Kharakhai in Lower Dir district. They overran the outpost while killing 16 Pakistani police personnel. Both attacks originated from across the border in the Afghan province of Kunar, where the Taliban and Al Qaeda have established safe havens after the US forces made a questionable withdrawal from Kunar and Nuristan in March 2010, creating a security hazard for Pakistani forces.

The Taliban have learnt that if they are relentless in their resistance, the US does withdraw. In leaving Kunar and more specifically the strategic Korengal valley, the US followed the path taken by the erstwhile USSR when it too withdrew from this part after the Mujahideen attacks became deadly. This was heralded as the beginning of the end of Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Does the loss of control over Kunar and Nuristan also herald a similar retreat by the US from Afghanistan?

“The withdrawal is a great victory for us,” said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid in April 2010, when the Taliban forces occupied US posts in Korengal and Pech valleys. “The area is very, very important for us. Its mountains provide a good hideout, it can be used as training ground and lead our operations from the region there.” The severity of attacks on Pakistani territory in 2011 has proved him right.

It is not understood why Isaf commander Gen Petraeus told the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 15 that the Taliban`s momentum had been reversed in most areas of Afghanistan. At best, the situation is fragile and easily reversible. The situation on the ground seems to contradict the general`s hopeful projection.

Gen Petraeus added that America`s “core objective” was to “ensure that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for Al Qaeda”. Yet the two attacks on Dir clearly show that Al Qaeda has become a formidable presence in this part of the Hindu Kush and that the US has not been able to deny it this sanctuary.

For Pakistan, the policy options are either to conduct hot pursuit into Afghanistan, or to fence the Durand Line to protect itself against attacks. To do nothing is dangerous.

Due to this security threat from Afghanistan, the recent Pakistani gains in Swat, Buner, Dir, Bajaur and Mohmand appear to be tenuous. It is also clear that the insurgents are now deeply embedded within the region.

So, what next?

The following predictions can be safely made: the gains made by the Pakistan military in Swat, Dir and Bajaur will be tested; it is also clear that while the Pakistani military holds sway in the valleys, the mountains mostly belong to the militants. Yet while the Hindu Kush range provides them with advantages, it also limits the type of war that they can wage: they cannot field large groups. However, the mountains give them the ability to easily change their axis of attack more quickly than the military, which is dependent on a long supply chain.

Furthermore, public opinion in Pakistan that is favourable to the militants allows them to receive a steady supply of volunteers. These factors provide them the ability to conduct a war of attrition against Pakistan for a long time to come. They also have the ability to extend insecurity to other parts of the country to lessen the pressure against them.