Long war on terror

The POST, Sun, Oct,14, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Recent reports are increasingly highlighting the disastrous aspects of the US led war on terror and suggesting changes in their policies with regard to both Iraq and Afghanistan. The most recent report which was prepared by the Oxford Research Group stressed that western strategy since September 2001 attacks on twin towers had not only failed to extinguish the threat from Islamic extremism but also fuelled it. The western countries will have to face the dangerous mistakes of the past six years and recognize the need for new policies. 

It is interesting that the thinking people in the west are now beginning to seriously ponder over what went wrong and have begun to recognize their mistakes whereas many in the Islamic world had already highlighted the conclusions which are now becoming popular within the west. For obvious reasons one is bound to conclude that the policies pursued and still are being pursued were product of efforts to attain certain coveted objective. 

Even the recommendations are no different than what had already been suggested by many within the Islamic world. One suggestion revolves around withdrawal of foreign forces. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the cry for withdrawal of foreign forces is loud and clear yet not many in the west are willing to properly hear it. Blinded by their extreme bias they had refused to see good coming out of Islamic world and preferred to pursue their own flawed policies. 

In Afghanistan the major impediment to a dialogue between the Karazai’s government and Mulla Omar’s Taliban force is the presence of ISAF and NATO forces. The Taliban has made it a precondition to a dialogue between them and the incumbent Afghan government. The grand Jirga has already urged the Afghan government to make extra efforts to initiate a dialogue with the Taliban. Consequently the Jirga consisting of Pakistani as well as Afghan tribal representatives did make an effort and the Taliban initially appeared interested but later decided to stress that they would not start a dialogue unless and until the foreign forces are withdrawn. 

It is equally difficult for Afghan government to ask the foreign forces to withdraw. Without the foreign military support the new trained Afghan army is no match to battle hardened and experienced Taliban fighters. The reports that are almost regularly published continuously highlight problematic aspects of war in Afghanistan. Given the nature of geographical terrain of the area along with the Taliban’s war experience makes it quite difficult for foreign forces to destroy the hideouts of Taliban. 

Similarly the situation is even worse in Iraq. The US attacked Iraq on the pretext that Iraq was building a weapon of mass destruction but has not been able to find such weapons so far. Many have already argued that the real purpose of attacking Iraq was to gain the much desired control over Iraqi oil. Attempts to gain control over oil entailed the regime change for which the Americans were extremely keen. In addition the weakening of Iraqi forces would indirectly strengthen Israel. 

Despite the presence of more than 150,000 American troops, the situation in Iraq dose not seems to be improving. Apart from few small areas the Americans cannot move out of their fortress type accommodations. It has been repeatedly suggested by many that as long as the American forces are in Iraq, the situation is unlikely to improve. The mess is so great now that even the withdrawal of American troops is not likely to be an effective panacea. 

The second suggestion that is circulating among the thinking public of the west stresses more emphasis on diplomacy. By and large there is no doubt that the employment of diplomacy is likely to produce some results than continuing with military means. For a short while the employment of military means could be useful but to contemplate its long term presence is indeed fatal. The long presence of American forces has given birth to many groups that are fighting independently now. 

Not only the American presence in Iraq has caused a major division among the Iraqi society but notions like division of Iraq are being projected with a view to divide Iraq into three parts-each autonomous or absolutely independent. Such an eventuality could have dangerous repercussion for the entire region. Admittedly the Americans may be able to retain control on their preferred region for some time but ultimately they will have to go. Already the presence of large American forces has caused the emergence of many resistance groups. 

The third recommendation stresses the scaling down of military activities and talks with militia. Indeed this strategy could work provided the Americans are able to secure the confidence of resistance groups. Undoubtedly the scaling down of military actions could motivate the resistance to seriously consider the option of dialogue. Scaling down of military presence could also be mistaken as the weakening of the will. 

As mentioned above many in various Muslim countries predicted that the war against terror is going to long and difficult but many in the west were not convinced and thought that they can take the risk and anticipated a quick victory. Since there exists no consensus upon the definition of terrorism, each one of us has devised our own definition keeping in view the national interests of our country. 

Terrorism connotes different meaning to different people. To George Bush it may means the use of violence against the Americans by the extremists, to Indian leaders it may mean Pakistan sponsored infiltration of terrorists into the Indian Held Kashmir (IHK), to Israeli it may mean the suicide attacks in Israel by the Palestinians and to the Pakistanis it may mean what the Indian security forces are doing in the IHK including engineering anti-Muslim riots, communal killings of the Muslims in which the state machinery is directly involved either in IHK or other parts of India or Raw’s activities in various parts of Pakistan including financing, training, launching operations with the help dissident elements. 

Ever since the US led war on terror has started, not only countries like Iraq and Afghanistan experienced total destruction of their country along with total disruption of their societies but other Muslim countries also experienced number of complex problems. Admittedly terrorist acts even rocked London and Madrid. However what is interesting to note here is that the blasts in London and Madrid were able to inject realistic approaches and the concerned agencies began to also focus on causation aspect. 

The long war on terror is unlikely to be shortened if the current approaches and policies continued to be pursued. Going to war with Iran will certainly make matters far worse. Such a policy would amount to be playing right into the hands of extremist elements. Undoubtedly more emphasis on negotiation than on military action could pay desired dividends. Since the war on terror, so far, has been a disaster, the change of policy would not be out of order. What is needed initially is the scaling down of military operations and simultaneous rapid increase in efforts for negotiations. Such an approach can provide opportunities to foreign troops to reduce their presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.