The so-called war on terror is in shambles

Posted: March 6, 2009 in civilisation?
Tags: ,

The armed assault on Sri Lanka’s cricket team in Lahore has been a brutal demonstration, if any more were needed, that the war on terrorism is devouring itself and the states that have been sucked into its slipstream.

Par756994Pakistan is both victim and protagonist of the conflict in Afghanistan, its western and northern fringes devastated by a US-driven counter-insurgency campaign, its heartlands wracked by growing violence and deepening poverty. The country shows every sign of slipping out of the control of its dysfunctional civilian government – and even the military that has held it together for 60 years.

Presumably, that was part of the intended message of the group that carried out Tuesday’s attacks. But the outrage also fits a well-established pattern of attacks carried out in revenge for the army’s devastation of the tribal areas on the Afghan border, where thousands have been killed and up to half a million people forced to flee from the fighting with the Pakistani Taliban.

Hostility to this onslaught has been inflamed by the recent revelation that US aerial drone attacks on supposed terrorist hideouts have been launched from a base in Pakistan itself, with the secret connivance of President Asif Zardari, as well as across the border from occupied Afghanistan.

Now that Pakistan faces its own blowback from the Afghan war and the Taliban it helped create, its military intelligence is trying to redirect its wayward offspring back to fight what are supposed to be Pakistan’s own US and British allies in Afghanistan on the other side of the border. The Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar’s call on his Pakistani followers this week to stop attacks on the Pakistani army and join the battle to “liberate Afghanistan from occupation forces” reflects that pressure.

afghanistan-war-2The situation is only one byproduct of the systematically counterproductive nature of Western policy across the wider region since 2001. After seven years of lawless invasion and occupation, the war on terrorism is in ruins. The limits of American military power have been laid bare in the killing fields of Iraq; Iran has been transformed into the pre-eminent regional power; Hezbollah and Hamas have become the most important forces in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories; a resurgent Taliban is leading an effective guerilla war in Afghanistan; and far from crushing terrorist networks, the US and its allies have spread them to Pakistan.

Barack Obama’s rise to power is a product of that record of failure: without his opposition to the Iraq war he would not be President. And since his inauguration, he has signalled potentially important shifts in US foreign policy, while ditching the rhetoric of the war on terrorism. But although the belligerent language has gone, what is striking is the continuity with the main elements of George Bush’s “war on terrorism”.

Obama’s timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq mirrors last November’s status of forces agreement between the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government, including his stated “intention” to pull out all troops by the end of 2011. And, as after last year’s deal, that was quickly qualified by the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, who said he would like to see a “modest” US military presence stay on thereafter – if the Iraqi Government requested it.

In the crucible of conflict in the Middle East, between Israel and the Palestinians, there is also little sign of any substantive change in US policy, whether on lifting the continuing siege of Gaza or talking to the Palestinians’ elected representatives, let alone using US leverage to bring an end to Israel’s illegal colonisation of the West Bank or to end its occupation.

However, it is in Afghanistan that the new US is on the point of compounding the failures of the war on terrorism. Obama has already committed himself to sending 17,000 more US troops, an increase of almost 50 per cent, with the prospect of a similar number again later in the year.

afghan-war-3But there is not the remotest prospect that a “surge” of this scale – aimed at propping up a corrupt Afghan administration the US and its allies openly despise – can pacify the country or crush Taliban-led Pashtun resistance, though it will surely raise the civilian death toll, running at more than 2000 last year.

It is also not what Afghans or Americans want, according to opinion polls, and it will continue to destabilise an already precarious Pakistan, which will be the sanctuary for even more Taliban fighters.

The grip of conservative Islamism on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is the legacy not just of Bush, but decades of US meddling in the region. What Obama has inherited is an arc of US- and Western-backed occupation from Palestine to Pakistan.

If the administration’s review of “Afpak” policy were to lead to negotiations with the Taliban and a wind-down of the occupation, that would cut the ground from under Pakistan’s own insurgency. But if Afghanistan becomes Obama’s war, it risks poisoning his presidency – just as Vietnam did for Lyndon Johnson more than 40 years ago.

[Seumas Milne, Guardian News & Media via Sydney Morning Herald]

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
About these ads
Comments
  1. [...] to get moving in a constructive direction, although his strategy wasn’t exactly correct. The Taliban are resurgent in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s been quite obvious over the last 6 months. The question is, do they really have that [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s