Who Wins-1

Who Wins? By Brig (Retd) Dr. Muhammahd Aslam Khan ---PhD US Military is finally packing off from Iraq that would be labeled as the largest exercise of the modern military history. De-induction of US troops from Iraq shall cost billions of dollars to meet dateline of clearing their tail by 31st August 2010. Chelsea J. Carter writes, “Not since Vietnam has the US withdrawn so many troops and so much equipment with a looming deadline.”

Mother of an Iraqi Police Officer after an attack on police check post, mourns death of her son.

The dilemma that faces the commanders amidst the blemished memories of Vietnam War is multipronged. One: they have to meet a particular dateline for which the battle procedures must commence right now to ensure an orderly withdrawal. Two: capability one above cannot be executed because wedged in between are the next Iraqi national elections of January 2010. Till then, military methodology of disengagement shall warrant that US troops must retain stable posture in Iraq. Three: further surge in Afghanistan, despite General Michael Mullen’s crying wolf has yet not been determined and quantified accurately in terms of combat troops, fire power and support echelons that are mainly to swap over from Iraq. Also US command would not be in position to decide clearly what equipment and loads are to be handed over to the nascent Iraqi democracy until the election results. There are apprehensions that vacuum thus becoming a possibility because of impending troops’ withdrawal, political landscape might change with resurgence of Iraqi sectarian insurgency. Finally, the extrication exercise from SE (Kuwait) and SW (Jordan) of Baghdad shall force linear move and expose them to terrorists’ devices more effectively. As of today, US troops would be hauling along with them the tragic psychological baggage of 4339 killed since March 2003, besides millions of Iraqis killed, maimed and turned refugees. Whether troops are redeployed in Afghanistan or they reach safely their homeland, dent on their memories would haunt

them for years precisely in the manner; trauma is already afflicting their families across the Atlantic. There is considerably zealous debate among American and coalition partners’ public whether after decapitation of Saddam’s shadow and defeat of his army, was there any wisdom to prolong a futile fight that proved none of the pretexts of Americans’ waging war on terror in Iraq coming true? In fact some even more classy arguments surface about the legitimacy of waging Iraq War altogether. As quoted by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt with reference to ‘Guardian’, what General Wesley Clark, the retired NATO commander and former presidential candidate had said, “Those who favor this (Iraq) attack now will tell you candidly and privately that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid that at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon, to use it against Israel.” If al-Qaeda or Taliban harp on the same theme, it lends legitimacy to their cause and strengthens their appeal to Muslim and the neutral world. In other words in psychological warfare, they would achieve upper hand. US and UK, which had led the assault on Afghanistan as well, want to cling to pursuit of ‘victory’ sort of scenario, but ‘terror’ has firmly denied giving them any ground. In the new millennium’s jargon of ‘terrorism’, the war is not being perceived in conventional terms but between the market states of consent and the market states of terror in the wake of burgeoning globalization. Thus US second troops surge is likely to further intensify instability in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. German Lt General (ret) Götz Gliemeroth, who served as one of the first ISAF Commanders in Afghanistan 2003/2004, said in May 2008 in Berlin, “There can be no isolated solution for FATA without progress in Afghanistan and no stability in the FATA and Pakistan without peace in Afghanistan.” On the contrary, US efforts to seek Afghan solution through FATA are not only unrealistic but also amount to passing the buck to Pakistan as a cover up of its misadventure. At the international level, Pakistan ability to stand to the conundrum is being viewed by certain critics with reservations, some very nightmarish. In my opinion, with our robust and loyal institution in shape of Pakistan Army available to us, threat from militants emerges less significant but for the socio-political widening domestic fault lines and upheavals, one tends to mourn them. Similarly in Afghanistan, additional induction and prolongation of coalition troops stay, is bound to be contested tooth and nail. US along with coalition forces are preparing ground to perpetuate an aura of victory that would in fact be the victory of Taliban because victory as apparent might actually be defeat. Swap and further surge would reinforce alQaeda/Taliban appeal deeper and wider among the masses in Afghanistan and Pakistan as anti-Americanism that US can no longer afford, to deny Taliban a robust cause, shall become rampant far more severely than ever before. The deduction is obvious to ascertain, who would be winner in the obtaining situation? An American political thinker’s assessment perhaps fits well in this scenario, “…. their (Jihadists) prediction of US attacks on Muslims, the humiliation of captives, American imposition of certain legal norms – including women’s rights and democratic practices – and the report of riches stolen from the region by the colonial West all appeared to confirm Osama bin Laden’s

portrait of Muslim world under siege by US and its allies”. Killing 90 people through an air strike, hovering around for some free litters of oil from the two hijacked oil tankers by Taliban in Afghanistan is an episode where even some coalition partners’ have raised their voice. NATO has promised to investigate September 05, 2009 mishap but the propaganda advantage has already been reaped by Taliban that is exactly the gain they are aiming at. It is time to address the basic issues to let the world avail a deserving relief. Web of too far fetched philosophies being woven to wage war on terror, if ridden with potent threat to global peace would certainly not stand any logic because the scholars are blatantly straight and square about the issues of world politics. In the same vein Taliban and al Qaeda should also realize that they owe equal, perhaps greater responsibility to render protection to the societies among whom they shield themselves and operate in clandestine manner to pinch the leading powers, they are at war with. Thus dialogue should merge the best course to follow. If during Cold War era, US and Soviets could successfully negotiate MAD (mutually assured destruction) issues, the present gulf between the two sides is no doubt very deep but negotiable. A US functionary, Mr. Holbrook’s recent statement in Pakistan, emphasizing that dialogue with Taliban was an option to resolve the conflict, even if perceived by some as merely a white-wash sort of geopolitical manoueavre, is a land mark gesture worth due reciprocity. There is ample food for thought for Afghan as well as Pakistani Taliban who must seek to avail such overture that could herald peace in war torn region ultimately. One also hopes, UN that endorsed US attack on Afghanistan would not simply sit on the periphery and watch the tragic blood letting of coalition forces as well as of Taliban, alQaeda and most importantly innocent civil population caught up in their cross fire. People from large swaths of the world, no doubt have come to feel the way William Shakespeare described it long ago: “Where most it promises; and oft it hits Where hope is coldest, and despair most fits” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Makni (authors’ acronym) is former Director Evaluation & Research and Director Org and Methods, Pakistan Army, besides twice having served in prestigious Military Operations Directorate. He has authored a book, “The New Great Game: Oil and Gas Politics in Central Eurasia”, published from New York, London and Swansea in Feb 2008. ([email protected])