Dangerous Policies

Ever since the Cold War ended and the US gained primacy in what still is a uni-polar world the US has been struggling to find a way to use its primacy. This search led the US into Afghanistan and then into Iraq. A leader is judged by the legacy he leaves behind. George Bush's legacy is the thousands of dead and maimed Americans and their grieving kin and of course the quagmire that Iraq and Afghanistan have become and the economic recession. For 25 years the folly of Viet-Nam was accepted because of the Cold War but what is the excuse for the strategic blunder of a war without end in two countries that cannot possibly threaten the primary military power in the world today and its NATO allies.

President Obama's arrival was to herald a change as he moved to tackle the recession and the joblessness that it had brought to America. He was expected to get into meaningful talks with North Korea and Iran. He was supposed to extricate out of Iraq and create the environment for an eventual exit from Afghanistan. None of these events are in sight. Iraq may drift into civil war and violence as the US leaves and the forces struggling to free Afghanistan are getting ready to welcome the troop surge that the US/NATO are planning. The US/NATO operations in Afghanistan are fuelling the expansion of terror into Pakistan.

The AF-PAK strategy will do nothing to resolve conflict. Pakistan has lost, and is losing, far more than it is getting. The promised 1.5 billion dollars will not shore up Pakistan's shattered economy and the regulatory conditions have alienated Pakistanis. Why could not the US set up a partnership with the private sector in Pakistan to develop projects that will create jobs, step up production and create an economy that could be a bulwark against terror and extremism?

Pakistanis are also asking that if Pakistan is an ally and if there is a strategic dialogue with Pakistan then why the Pentagon is making public statements against the military and the ISI---statements that may be music for Afghans and Indians but hurt Pakistanis deeply. Why is it that the US only listens to those who have made careers out of saying what the US wants to hear? Surely the US knows that this will undermine those who are its real allies and well wishers in Pakistan. Supporting a civilian government should not be at the cost of alienating the military and its intelligence apparatus---that would be counter-productive.

If the US is to succeed in Afghanistan then it must get rid of those in the Afghan government with past baggage. The Afghan government must be made representative by giving the majority Pashtuns of Southern Afghanistan enough space. The drug economy must be destroyed and the smuggling routes strangled. Financial inflows must be checked and sources for weapons dried up. The Afghan people must be provided security. Talks with moderate Pashtuns must be started. These actions must take priority---nation and capacity building in Afghanistan can continue over a longer period but the environment must change now. The US presence in Afghanistan should change from a destabilizing to a stabilizing influence in the interest of regional harmony.

If there is a struggle within extremists and moderates within Islam the US should not take sides. Islam is within the US, the UK, Europe, India and other countries. By taking sides the US is creating a bigger problem for the world. Islam can resolve any conflicts within it without outside interference. Those who did 9/11 must be amazed at the success that they have achieved.