April 12, 2009


As I listened to President Obama's address to the nation and his wartime rhetoric, I held my breath. He didn't speak softly. His tone was harsh and threatening. He carried a big stick. That was quite obvious. The spontaneous reaction of all those present was that Obama had learned nothing from history and was not going to change course in Afghanistan or Pakistan. As they say, it was deja vu all over again. What he said was no different from what George W Bush had been saying for years.

Once we thought this one-of-a-kind American president could do great things. In his inaugural address he focused more on 'soft power’ and told the Muslim world that he wants 'a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.’ All that seems to have changed. His message for Pakistan now is loud and clear: Do as I tell you, or else. This is not the way the Americans treated us or talked to us when they were wooing us. This is what happens when you have been in the harem too long. Oh, What a difference a half a century can make!

Obama's decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan is simply an extension of the failed policy of George W Bush. Beefing up the American occupation in Afghanistan is not the solution. It is part of the problem. The presence of foreign troops on their soil is perceived by Afghans as deeply humiliating, a constant reminder of the loss of everything they cherish, everything they hold dear—freedom, sovereignty, liberties, honour and national pride. They will never accept foreign occupation of their country, and they will never collaborate with the enemy. Let there be no doubt about it.

Talking about escalation in Vietnam, President Kennedy told Defence Secretary Robert McNamara. 'It is like taking a drink. The effect wears off and you have to have anotherÉ The war in Vietnam could be won only so long as it was their war. If it were ever converted into a white man's war, we would lose it as the French had lost a decade earlier.’ The American war in Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal territory is essentially a white man's war and is not winnable.

Today the United States is at war in Afghanistan and our tribal area. However you title or define it, it is war, a war it cannot win. Today nationalism is among the most potent phenomena of political life in this part of the world. In the past, nationalism had succeeded in disrupting the British, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. If the United States persists in waging this totally unnecessary and unjustified war, it would suffer a similar fate.

The fundamental question Obama must address is whether American combat troops will be able to prevail over the insurgent forces that drove the Red Army out of Afghanistan. The Obama administration's programme for Afghanistan and Pakistan is rash to the point of folly. I foresee a perilous voyage for the Americans. One thing is for sure. With more Americans in combat, there will certainly be greater losses. Obama is sending conventional troops to do an unconventional job in Afghanistan. He is bound to fail.

'Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson,’ former Soviet general, Boris Gromov said on the anniversary of the withdrawal of Soviet troops on Feb 15, 1989. 'You cannot kill your way out of insurgency in Afghanistan. It has been, and always will be, impossible to solve political problems using force.’

Americans invaded Afghanistan more than eight years ago. They have not broken the back of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They have not captured or killed Osama bin Laden or any other high-profile leader. They have no exit strategy.

As Thomas Powers wrote recently: 'What no country can do for long is force strange people in distant places to reshape their politics and society more to our liking. The effect passes as nation-building at the outset, but in the long run counter-insurgency always comes down to the same self-defeating strategy Ð killing locals until they stop trying to make us go away.’ This is exactly what Americans are doing in Afghanistan and our tribal area.

In the early 1900s, a crusty British general, Andrew Skeen, wrote a guide to military operation in the Pashtun tribal belt. His first piece of advice: 'When planning a military expedition into Pashtun tribal areas, the first thing you must plan is your retreat. All expeditions into this area sooner or later end in retreat under fire.’

The wise course in Afghanistan would be for the United States to emulate France's example of divesting itself of its colonial obligations. If you look at the prestige of France today, it is certainly higher than it was when France fought in Algeria, and certainly higher than when France fought in Indochina. If ever there was an occasion of tactical withdrawal from Afghanistan, this is it.

Lyndon Johnson, despite a booming economy, lost his Great Society to the Vietnam War. He would later tell Doris Kearns Goodwin: 'If I left the woman I really loved Ð the Great Society Ð in order to get involved with that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programmesÉ all my dreamsÉ’. Obama runs a similar risk of losing everything in the mountains of Afghanistan and Waziristan. Why not, Mr President, profit from Lyndon JohnsonÕs experience and withdraw before it is too late.

'The single greatest threat to (Pakistan),’ Obama said recently, 'comes from Al Qaeda and their extremists allies.’ This is only partially true. All our major problems stem from the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. It has turned our tribal area into a protracted ulcer, a quagmire Ð a place where Pakistan is spending blood and treasure to protect American interests.

Obama must know that each strike by Predators or American ground forces reverberates in Pakistan. With the targets now spreading, an expanding US role inside Pakistan may be more than anyone can stomach. The anger level in the country is reaching a dangerous level. Obama will be well advised to scale back American ambitions in Afghanistan. No puppet government in Kabul can exercise effective control in the country beyond the capital or assure that it does not become a sanctuary for terror groups.

'The United States,’ Obama said, 'has great respect for the Pakistani people.’ Bombing our villages and killing innocent men, women and children, Mr President, is no way of earning the respect of our people. Like millions of my countrymen, I feel a deep antipathy toward the 'Yankees who have, with the help of power-hungry generals of the Pakistani army, turned independent, sovereign, proud Pakistan into a 'pseudo-Republic’ and a 'rentier state’ and allowed venal dictatorship to take root.

Who says we are friends? There can be no friendship between the strong and the weak. There can be no friendship between unequals, neither in private life nor in public life. 'The strong do what they can,’ the Athenians told the intractable Melians, 'and the weak must suffer what they must.’ The farewell address of George Washington will ever remain an important legacy for small nations like Pakistan. In that notable testament, the father of the American Republic cautioned that 'an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.’ 'It is folly in one nation,’ George Washington observed, 'to look for disinterested favours from anotherÉit must pay with a portion of its independence for what ever it may accept under that character.’ No truer words have been spoken on the subject. Who did this to us? Angry. So very, very angry. Unable to speak due to mega-anger washing over every pore and fiber of my being.

If you want to know what happens to an ill-led and ill-governed, small country, which attaches itself to a powerful country like the United States, visit Pakistan. Nuclear Pakistan has lost its independence. It is now virtually an American satellite, without its manhood, its honour, its dignity, and its sense of self-respect.

The writer is a former federal secretary.
Email: roedad@comsats.net.pk,www.roedadkhan.com