Thought you might enjoy the following article.
October 3, 2010
ericmargolis.com
Mission Creep In Afghanistan / Pakistan
By Eric Margolis
[Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist.
His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune,
the Los Angeles Times, Times of London.]
The focus of the Afghan War is clearly shifting south into Pakistan, drawing
that nation and the United States forces ever closer to a direct
confrontation. This grim development was as predictable as it was inevitable.
In fact, this writer has been warning for years that US and NATO efforts to
defeat resistance by Afghanistan¹s fierce Pashtun tribes to Western
occupation would eventually lead to spreading the conflict into neighboring
Pakistan, a nation of 175 million.
Last week, Pakistan temporarily closed the main US/NATO supply route from
Karachi to the Afghan border at Torkham after the killing of three Pakistani
soldiers by US helicopter gunships. Two US/NATO fuel supply convoys were
burned by anti-American militants.
Eighty percent of the supplies of the US-led forces in Afghanistan come up
this long, difficult route. Along the way, the US pays large bribes to
Pakistani officials, local warlords, and to Taliban. The cost of a gallon of
gas delivered to US units in Afghanistan has risen to $800.
US helicopter gunships have staged at least four attacks on Pakistan this
past week alone, in addition to the mounting number of strikes by CIA drones
that are inflicting heavy casualties on civilians and tribal militants
alike. US special forces and CIA-run Afghan mercenaries are also
increasingly active along Pakistan¹s northwest frontier.
Pakistan¹s feeble government has long closed its eyes to CIA¹s drone
attacks. Washington does not even seek permission for the raids or give
advance warning to Islamabad. Pakistani civilians bear the brunt of the
attacks.
The failing government in Islamabad is caught between two fires. Pakistanis
are furious and humiliated by the American attacks. Each new assault further
undermines the inept, US-installed Zardari government. Even Interior
Minister Rehman Malik, the government¹s strongman, protested last week¹s US
attacks.
But Pakistan is on the edge of economic collapse after its devastating
floods. Islamabad is now totally reliant on $2 billion annual US aid, plus
tens of millions more ³black² payments from CIA. Washington has given
Islamabad $10 billion since 2001, most of which goes to financing 140,000
Pakistani troops to join the US-led Afghan war.
As Osama bin Laden just pointed out in a new audio tape, the Muslim nations
have been derelict in coming to Pakistan¹s aid. He blamed the massive
flooding in Pakistan on global warming.
An influential former Pakistani chief of staff, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, just
demanded Pakistan¹s air force shoot down US drones and helicopters violating
his nation¹s sovereignty. His sentiments are widely shared in Pakistan¹s
increasingly angry military.
Pakistan¹s senior generals are being blasted as ³American stooges² by some
of the media and are losing respect among Pakistanis. A video this week of
the execution of six civilians by army troops has further damaged the army¹s
good name.
However, Washington¹s view is very different. Pakistan is increasingly
branded insubordinate, ungrateful for billions in aid, and a potential enemy
of US regional interests. Many Americans consider Pakistan more of a foe
than ally. The limited US financial response to Pakistan¹s flood was a sign
of that nation¹s poor repute in North America.
Fears are growing in Washington that the nine-year Afghan War may be lost.
American popular opinion has turned against the war. The Pentagon fears a
failure in Afghanistan will humiliate the US military and undermine
America¹s international power. In short, just what happened to the Soviet
Union in Afghanistan.
America¹s foreign policy establishment is venting its anger and frustration
over the failing Afghan War by lashing out at Pakistan and the US-installed
Karzai regime in Kabul.
Pakistan¹s President, Asif Ali Zardari, is seen in Washington as hopeless
and incompetent. Full US attention is now on Pakistan¹s military, the de
facto government, and its respected but embattled commander, Gen. Ashfaq
Kayani, whose tenure was just extended under US pressure. Kayani is still
regarded as an ³asset² by Washington. But like Zardari, he is caught between
American demands and outraged Pakistanis plus concerns about the threat
from India and Delhi¹s machinations in Afghanistan. The recent upsurge of
violence in Indian-ruled Kashmir has intensified these dangerous tensions.
The neoconservative far right in Washington and its media allies again claim
Pakistan is a grave threat to US interests and to Israel. Pakistan must be
declawed and dismembered, insist the neocons. Pakistan¹s nuclear arsenal is
reportedly being targeted for seizure or elimination by US Special Forces.
There is also talk in Washington of dividing Afghanistan into Pashtun, Tajik
and Uzbek mini-states, as the US has done in Iraq, and perhaps Pakistan, as
well. Little states are easier to rule or intimidate than big ones. Many
Pakistanis believe the United States is bent on dismembering their nation.
Some polls show Pakistanis now regard the United States as a greater enemy
than India.
Now that America is in full mid-term election frenzy, expect more calls for
tougher US military action in ³AfPak.² Already unpopular politicians are
terrified of being branded ³soft on terrorism² and failing to maximally
support US military campaigns. Flag waving replaces sober thought.
If polls are right and Republicans achieve a major win, it¹s likely there
will be more and deeper US air and land attacks into Pakistan. The Pentagon
is convinced it can still defeat resistance by Taliban and its allies ³if
only we can go after their sanctuaries in Pakistan,² as one general told me.
Where have we heard this before? Why in Cambodia and Laos, that¹s where,
during the Vietnam War. The frustrated US expanded the war into Cambodia and
Laos to go after Communist base camps. The war spread; these two small
nations were largely destroyed, but the war was ultimately lost.
Victory in war is achieved by concentration of forces, not spreading them
ever thinner and wider.
Leave a Reply