The latest suicide car bomb attack in Kabul, killing 13 American and three Australian soldiers, was the deadliest single blow to American lives and morale since the war began 10 years ago. It was one of the eight major incidents to have hit Kabul since the beginning of 2011, including an attack on the Kabul Inter-Continental killing 21 people, suicide bombing on a British cultural centre, and so on.
It is an even greater blow to Barack Obama’s presidency than the threat to stage a march to occupy Wall Street — the hub of global capitalism.
Ten years on, the US’s Afghan war has surpassed the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988) in dismal strategic and operational failure. In terms of American lives, it was unequivocally worse than the 20-hour siege of Kabul and assault on the US embassy in September.
One would not quite know whether to laugh or cry over the statement of a NATO spokesman seeing “very dramatic improvement”, in the security situation “in many years”. Either it is robust confidence or mere wishful thinking about NATO’s ability to ‘undertake’ and ensure smooth ‘transition’ to a peaceful Afghanistan.
That an episode as dramatic and well planned should have happened on the eve of the Istanbul conference lends it a deeper significance as yet another such attack on Kabul-based NATO-ISAF forces.
Regardless of the spin Washington might put on the catastrophe as the unavoidable consequences and cost of a distant war, its impact on the casualty-shy American people — especially on the bereaved families — would be simply devastating.
Trapped in the middle of the devil of an ostensibly unwinnable war and the deep (even darker) sea of an election year, President Obama cannot even think of risking yet another military adventure against Pakistan.
An American General, Scaparrotti, in a recent interview to The Washington Post noted that until last year he (and the US) “enjoyed excellent cooperation” with the Pakistan Army. He ‘toured’ the ‘battlefield with Pakistani ‘counterparts’ along both sides of the border.
General Scaparotti came to Pakistan on the eve of Secretary Clinton’s recent visit to Islamabad. After his interaction with the Pakistan top brass, he ‘pressed’ for re-establishing ‘routine’ communications on how best to deal with the insurgents “on a daily basis”.
Back in Washington, a State Department spokesperson went on to reaffirm that the US and Pakistan agreed on “90 to 95 percent” of what needed to be done and the two countries should work on what next step we take together.
“Enhanced operations” against the “guerrillas in Afghanistan” — the use of the term ‘guerrillas’ in place of ‘miscreants’ and ‘militants’ is significant unless used rhetorically and loosely. Used deliberately it should testify to the emergence of al Qaeda and Taliban-trained guerrilla bands and trained freedom fighters.
The Obama administration ‘clearly’ sought to ‘re-engage’ Pakistan. Considering Pakistan is already engaged deeply in the US’s (now Pakistan’s) war on terror, re-engaging may well be interpreted in more ways than one: a deeper commitment without commensurate rewards.
A State Department spokesman, Victoria Nuland, at a media briefing (October 26) ruled out all possibility of war with Pakistan. Ms Nuland’s statement affirmed the US’s peace strategy to make nonsense of President Karzai boast to stand by Pakistan in the event of an American attack. She said, “Because it is not going to happen it is not an issue (war).” Karzai’s loud boast in nuclear parlance would sound like ‘the mouse that roared’.
A protégé of the US and under its protection, Karzai should be the last person to stand by Pakistan in the event of aggressive action from his own patron saint, the US, or his most favoured country, India.
A rank opportunist, Karzai could not wait to go back on his word and blame the media (mainly Pakistani) for ‘misinterpreting’ his statement. The easiest thing to do when caught on the wrong foot for the kind of loose talk intended to be clever.
Wearing a terse look and using an even harsher language on arrival, Secretary Clinton virtually confronted Pakistan with an ultimatum. She would not wait to give Pakistan ‘days and weeks’ to dismantle the militants’ safe havens along the Afghan border. She threatened Pakistan with ‘dire consequences’ if it failed to ‘contain’ the terrorists operating from its soil. She concluded that the US and Pakistan had agreed on 90 to95 percent of what needs to be done. All fire and brimstone at her joint press conference with the foreign minister, Clinton gradually relented to acknowledge Pakistan’s help in facilitating an ‘exploratory’ meeting with the Haqqani network.
She relented, even more, as she took questions from the audience at her press conference. Shamama, a charming lady from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, stood and intervened to liken the US with a fastidious hardnosed mother-in-law never to be satisfied with her daughter-in-law. Shamama (meaning fragrance) thus provided a lighter interlude to send Clinton into uncontrollable guffaws. She would hardly have ever experienced such uncontrolled laughter even in a private gathering, not to speak of a media encounter.
Whereas Shamama’s hilarious aside would impact but little on the US’s ‘AfPak’ diplomacy in essence, it did change the tone to Pakistan’s advantage — no matter how small.
President Obama’s election year should ease the pressure on Pakistan to frustrate Mr Karzai’s pipedream to stand by Pakistan in the event of an American invasion.
Apart from the sheer absurdity of launching yet another war-like operation after a failed Iraq and a failing Afghan war, yet another war on a nuclear-armed Pakistan would be suicidal on the eve of the crucial election years.
It could take a sudden adverse turn, seriously to impact the course of the coming election, which ‘remains the domain of uncertainty’. In a strange juxtaposition of the stars there are no two countries as Pakistan and the US hustled into the same zodiac house.
Afghanistan should recede into a relative twilight zone after over a decade of blinding limelight. Pakistan would steal the show for the world to watch as the curtain rises on the next act.
Pakistan may be risking anything short of extinction but the US may risk its stature as a global giant.
However, for all that to go our way, we must put our own house in order.
The writer is a retired brigadier and can be reached at [email protected]