The US–Pakistan Rift Over Afghanistan

The US–Pakistan Rift Over Afghanistan

The US–Pakistan Rift Over Afghanistan

The US bombing of a Pakistani border outpost, US drone attacks and Pakistani support for the Taliban—all threaten to destroy the chances for a peaceful US-NATO exit from Afghanistan.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

By next September 33,000 US troops will have left Afghanistan, and if the Obama administration sticks to its timetable, additional withdrawals will follow, removing nearly all foreign forces by 2014. But worrying recent developments, including Pakistan’s refusal to attend a critical conference in Bonn and horrific massacres of Shiites in Afghanistan, are a stark warning that the country could plunge back into civil war when US and NATO forces leave. To avoid that prospect, the United States will have to execute a deft and complicated series of diplomatic maneuvers, with great urgency.

But it isn’t at all clear that the administration, which is pursuing what appears to be a hopelessly contradictory policy of warmaking, peace talks and development assistance—what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “fight, talk, build”—knows what it’s doing.

The Bonn conference was a worldwide confab involving scores of nations, including the United States, China, Russia and Iran, and hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Held exactly ten years after the December 2001 Bonn conference that created the framework for post-Taliban Afghanistan, this year’s gathering was designed a year ago to provide a stamp of approval for what Washington hoped would be an accord between Afghanistan, the US-led coalition, Pakistan and the Taliban.

But the Taliban and their allies, who have flirted with peace talks for years, didn’t attend. Worse, Pakistan—which created, armed and trained the Taliban; protected Al Qaeda (including Osama bin Laden); and backs groups like the Haqqani network that are responsible for assassinations, suicide bombings and such high-profile acts as the 2009 assault on the Indian embassy in Kabul—boycotted Bonn, too.

The ostensible reason behind Pakistan’s decision not to come to Bonn, which all but crippled the conference, was the still-unexplained killing of two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border post near Afghanistan by a sustained US aircraft and artillery barrage on November 26. Pakistan, seething with anti-American resentment over what many Pakistanis see as cavalier US infringements on their sovereignty—from the January killing of two Pakistanis by an armed CIA contractor to the incursion that killed Osama bin Laden on May 1 to the barrage of drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas—was predisposed to react strongly to the border incident. And react it did, not only avoiding Bonn but closing down crucial US supply lines and demanding US abandonment of a drone base in Pakistan. And Pakistan’s army is flexing its muscle again. Amid coup rumors, President Asif Ali Zardari left the country on December 6, after suffering what was called a mild heart attack.

Like other US-Pakistan rifts, this one is likely to blow over. Despite their differences, and there are many, the countries need each other. Pakistan desperately needs US and Western support, since its economy is a basket case and it is outclassed by rival India’s growing might. And the United States needs Pakistan to bring the Taliban and other insurgents to the bargaining table. The last thing the Obama administration needs, as it winds down the Afghan war, is a confrontation with Pakistan.

Even so, that hasn’t stopped hawks in Washington from talking about carrying the war across the border. Ever since US agencies unveiled National Intelligence Estimates last year warning that Pakistan’s sanctuaries for Afghan insurgents were a major obstacle to military progress in the war, there have been calls for NATO to go beyond drone attacks in Pakistan. That would be disastrous.

If the military is indeed thinking about escalating the war into Pakistan, was that the message lurking behind the November 26 attack? If so, the White House needs to yank strongly on the Pentagon’s leash. According to Vali Nasr, an adviser to the late Richard Holbrooke when he handled the portfolio on Afghanistan and Pakistan, there are two US policies on Afghanistan: that of the White House and State Department, which prefer to talk, and that of the CIA and Defense Department, which prefer to fight. (Reportedly, Obama, under pressure from the Pentagon, hesitated for more than a week before he phoned President Zardari to provide a qualified apology for the November 26 killings.) Even many US generals know that the war in Afghanistan can’t be won militarily. So the United States needs an all-out focus on a settlement, even after the crash-and-burn conference in Bonn.

That effort ought to start with a unilateral US/NATO cease-fire. By halting drone attacks, the United States could provide a face-saving way for Pakistan to enter serious negotiations. A cease-fire would also end the mixed messages sent to the Taliban and their allies and provide a true test of their willingness to come to the table. Even after the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s designee to explore talks with the Taliban—apparently carried out by a Taliban operative with Pakistan’s support—Karzai remains ready to talk to Pakistan and the Taliban. “Pakistan’s role in any negotiations with the Taliban is very important, and that is what we are seeking,” Karzai said the day after the Bonn conference.

No talks can be successful, of course, without a broad regional accord involving all of Afghanistan’s neighbors, especially Pakistan, India, Iran and Russia—important players with allies among Afghanistan’s factions. Coaxing Pakistan and the Taliban into talks while getting the region’s powers to underwrite a rebalanced Afghan accord and, very likely, a new Constitution, is complex indeed. With each passing day, it seems the Obama administration isn’t up to the task, and that could mean we will remain bogged down in the quagmire even after 2014.

That’s unfortunate, because the American people have turned sharply against the war. Even among the Republican presidential candidates, it’s hard to find out-and-out hawks on Afghanistan. Recently the entire Senate, led by Jeff Merkley, adopted by voice vote an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill calling on Obama to accelerate the drawdown in Afghanistan. Americans want out, and the Senate, finally, is getting the message.

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x