It's been way too long since I have found the time to update this blog, but I will start regularly posting now.
Just recently, a terrorist cell in Canada was discovered. They
were planning to siege the Parliament building, take the politicians
there hostage, and behead the Prime Minister on TV.
I think this plot just further illustrates the significant danger
that our allies are facing because of the War on Terror. Of course,
this is to be expected from our NATO allies. NATO is an alliance based
on the strategy of peace through mutual defense. If one NATO country is
attacked, then it is treated as an attack on all NATO members. This
mutual defense arrangement has only been invoked one time throughout
the history of NATO. That was on September 12, 2001. Every single NATO
country responded by sending in their forces alongside the United
States into Afghanistan. Even Iceland, which doesn't have a military,
sent security personnel for the Kabul International Airport. Along with
our NATO allies, 14 other countries participated in the UN mandated
ISAF coalition. In 2003, even the "neutral" country of Switzerland sent
soldiers to assist the German forces in Afghanistan (The Swiss withdrew
at the beginning of 2008).
Our allies have paid for their assistance to the United States in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Spain had the Madrid train bombing in 2004. The
United Kingdom had to go through the 7/7 bombings. Germany has so far
managed to stop several major attempted terrorist attacks in their
country. All of this is no surprise. Al-Qaeda made it clear that any
Western powers that dared to intervene in Afghanistan or Iraq would be
subject to jihad. Every country that assisted the US in the military
operations in Afghanistan were essentially putting themselves on
Al-Qaeda's hit list. For this reason, we should be careful when
criticizing our allies for not doing enough. This isn't Iraq. They have
done much more in Afghanistan than most Americans realize. It is
particularly ironic that many Americans direct their criticism
specifically at France. They have handled unpopular changes well. The
original ISAF mandate was to overthrow the Taliban and secure Kabul so
that the Afghan government can function. The mandate was expanded in
2003 to include operations throughout the entire country of
Afghanistan. Contrary to the jingoistic rhetoric coming from ignorant
and gallophobic US politicians, France has adapted very well to these
changes. The US military has been primarily focused on security for
Kabul in the eastern part of the country. France has recently deployed
more troops to eastern Afghanistan in order to free up American troops
to help the Canadians in Kandahar.
Two countries that have had a particularly tough time are the United
Kingdom (Great Britain) and Canada. The UK has been operating in the
Helmand Province, and Canada has been operating in the Kandahar
province. Securing these two provinces is extremely critical. The
Taliban began making a comeback in 2006, especially in the south. It
appears as if they are regaining their foothold in the country, and the
situation has become especially violent in Helmand and Kandahar.
Coalition troop casualty rates have been climbing rapidly since 2006.
The number of suicide bombings has also risen dramatically. The recent
prison break and attacks on the two American military bases demonstrate
just how much of a danger there is that we may start losing this war.
If anything, it shows that we certainly aren't winning yet, although
this war is still winnable. It is just going to take some skillful
handling.
One thing that we don't have much of right now is time. This has become
much more critical now. Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has
announced that all Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan by 2011.
There are also other key NATO allies whose participation in military
operations in Afghanistan is not guaranteed in the near future. These
include France, Netherlands, Italy, and the UK. Germany isn't as likely
to leave anytime soon, but that doesn't mean that it won't happen if
things don't change soon. When Canada leaves in 2011, many of these
other key countries are very likely to follow, leaving the United
States to handle the job alone. This will mean a shift in the US
military from emphasis on security to more active combat operations.
Obviously, it has become much more important that we turn things around
before 2011. If we don't crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the region
before 2011, then it is going to become much harder to do so. US troops
make up approximately 50% of the total ISAF forces in Afghanistan. We
cannot afford to lose the other 50%.
If we are to succeed in time, the most important thing to remember
right now is that victory in Afghanistan is only possible through a
victory in Pakistan. These two countries are now inextricably linked in
this war. Pakistan screwed up in 2001 during the assault on Tora Bora.
They were patrolling the Pakistani side of the border in order to
intercept fleeing terrorists. Unfortunately, the ISI (Inter-Services
Intelligence: Pakistani version of the CIA), couldn't be trusted. Up
until 9/11/01, the ISI had openly supported the Taliban, and many
within the organization are still loyal to them. Many top terrorist
leaders (possibly Bin Laden) managed to escape into Pakistan because
operatives within the ISI probably allowed them to cross into North
Waziristan, which is one the Pakistani side of the border. We can't
change the past now. We have to adapt our strategy to the current
situation.
There is one area in particular that we need to focus on. I am talking
about the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on the Pakistani
side of the border. That is the pink area in the map above. The top
Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders are hiding out in here. Unfortunately,
this is a very difficult place for foreign militaries to operate. The
British tried a long time ago to conquer this area. They threw more
troops at them than were in the rest of the entire British Empire, and
the British still lost. Many of these locals, especially in the Khyber
Pass, are distant descendants of the armies of Alexander the Great. No
foreign military has been able to survive there. That is why the
Pakistani government has been unable to control these areas. Despite
the fact that Pakistan has one of the most professional military forces
in the third-world, they are still walking into a deathtrap any time
they attempt to move into these areas. Unfortunately, this is the area
that the terrorists are using as a safe haven from which to launch
attacks into Afghanistan. This is where we must win if we are to
stabilize Afghanistan. The people in these areas are highly supportive
of the Taliban, which is due more to Pashtun nationalism than religious
ideology. Pakistani Pashtuns are much more supportive of the Taliban
than Afghan Pashtuns, who have had to live under their rule, are. This
is also why many of the leaders in the Pakistani military are reluctant
to intervene. We must also deal with factions of the ISI that are still
loyal to the Taliban.
The Pakistani government is in a tough spot to be in. They were
supportive of the Taliban until 9/11. Now they are co-operating with
the United States, although elements of the ISI aren't. The Pakistani
government cannot be seen as being to helpful to the United States. Any
Pakistani politician that is perceived to be helping the United States
is likely to end up like Benazir Bhutto. That is why when a hellfire
missile from a US predator drone (I really like these things) that
killed Abu Hamza (a bombmaker, not to be confused with the bomb maker
Abu Hamza from the awesome movie, The Kingdom) was discovered, the
Pakistani government tried to convince people that Abu Hamza was killed
not by a US missile, but rather by one of his own bombs that went off
accidentally. That is why the presence of US military in Pakistan must
be denied by the Pakistani government (Our troops are there doing
logistical functions, not combat operations). That is also why
Musharraf has had numerous assassination attempts against him. The
current president, Zardari, has already been targeted three times.
We have given $11 billion to the Pakistani government already to help
them control these border regions. We have gotten very limited returns
on that investment, although the Pakistanis did manage to capture
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who planned the 9/11 attack. Unfortunately, we
are going to have to pay these duplicitous people even more. It looks
as if both Obama and McCain are willing to do this. It shouldn't be any
surprise that Obama likes to spend taxpayer dollars, but it does show
that McCain gets it. We are going to have to give the Pakistanis
whatever they need. If they can get these areas under control, then we
should demand that they do so. If they cannot, then they should not
have any problem with getting out of the way so that we can.
Unfornately, we will not be able to continue operations in Pakistan
covertly anymore. Bush had given classified orders in July to do just
that, and not inform the Pakistani government. The Pakistanis now know
about it, so now Bush has said that we will continue to go after
Al-Qaeda and Taliban targets in these tribal areas anyway, and tell the
Pakistani government about it afterwards or during the operations. As
surprising as this may be, Bush actually got this one right. The
terrorists have made southern Afghanistan a very dangerous place. We
cannot afford to wait on the Pakistanis to do something about it.
Pakistan will not tolerate this without responding. They are even
threatening to protect their borders from the United States with
military force if necessary. It may just be necessary. I am not eager
to have our troops engage the Pakistani military, but it looks like we
may have no choice. The Pakistanis are in the position where they must
respond if they are to hold onto power in their own country.
That is also why we must be careful not to weaken the Pakistani
military too much or destabilize the government. We cannot allow the
terrorists to steal any of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, so the Pakistani
government must stay in power.
US military presence in these tribal areas WILL result in an extreme
surge in Islamic militarism. We WILL encounter fierce resistance, but
if we cannot get the Pakistanis to operate in this area effectively,
then we will have no other choice but to go in ourselves. This will be
much more difficult than what we have encountered in Afghanistan so
far, but if we do nothing, then the terrorists will continue to
maintain their hold over southern Afghanistan, while Bin Laden and
Zawahiri continue to remain safe in Pakistan.
We must also deal with the opium problem in Afghanistan, which funds
terrorist networks. Obviously, we could take away alot of this black
market funding by simply getting the Afghan government to legalize
opium, but that is unlikely to happen. One way we can get around this
is to introduce our own CIA trained operatives into the drug trade. If
the Afghan government practices selective enforcement against the opium
industry, we can create a competitive advantage for our durg runners,
who will corner the market at the expense of the drug runners that
don't like us very much.
We must also practice tough diplomacy with the dictatorship in
Uzbekistan. The oppressive policies of Islam Karimov have led to a
surge in recruitment for the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is
allied with Al-Qaeda. We were using an old Sovet airbase in Uzbekistan
that Putin allowed us to use. We were asked to leave in 2005, so we
have nothing to lose from getting tough with that goverment. We must
make it clear to Karimov that his actions are making our mission much
more difficult in Afghanistan. If he insists on continuing to be a
paranoid psychopath, then perhaps it may be time for his daughter,
Gulnara Karimova to take over. This is one instance in which I may be
in favor of regime change. Gulnara Karimova seems to be a more rational
leader that we can work with, provided things imporve with the Russians.
Hopefully, these policy recommendations will help us succeed in
Afghanistan. We must win, and we must win very soon. We are running out
of time. There is a high probability that if we don't make significant
gains soon, there may very well be another attack on the United States
on the scale of 9/11, at the minimum.