|
Blog Home
News Home
Write your Column at iVarta
India, Asia and Global
Breaking Stories, Latest News Headlines, Opinion, Analysis
Columns and Discussions Business, Social and Community Networking.
Comprehensive
Collection of India News, Articles, Columns, Analysis and Research Papers.
Facts about India, Indian History, Culture, Yoga, Meditation & Ayurveda and
more…
|
|
|
|
Oct-09-2009
Author's Home Page
Views expressed here are author"s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer is
at the bottom.
 Feedback to author
Summary
In Part I of two part series I present information on the America"s post-WWII strategies of wars. I have also outlined evolving policy for sustainable American and international aid packages for and to stabilize Pakistan. America contents that such economic aid will stabilize the region - Pakistan, Afghanistan and India.
The economically powerful nations have been drivers of international wars from 1945 to present. For protecting engine of its economic power driven by a determination to secure assured energy supplies America actively protects its national interest by conducting wars in foreign lands.
The essay explores links between the economic strength and wars on foreign lands. It also identifies opportunity costs of war strategies of America (Part I) and Pakistan (Part II), some notable unintended consequences of fighting wars on foreign lands, America"s failed offshore war strategy and in Part II potential security threats posed by nuclear weapons proliferations.
Pakistan is an economically poor nation with over sized military seeking "rents" for "offshore" military services to maintain regional hegemony for its benefactors. With leadership of Taliban and al Qaeda Islamic militants lodged in "safe heavens" of Afpakia areas, a nuclear Pakistan may be a potential threat to security of America and the West if the nuclear assets should fall in the hands of known Islamic militants, both within and outside Pakistan"s army.
Several years ago in my blogs I had speculated that the road to peace in South Asia will originate in peaceful Afghanistan as that"s where destabilization of the region started. Starting 1980 America and Pakistan have used each other. For America Afghanistan war (1980-89) was an opportunity to implement its offshore strategy of war. For Pakistan occupation of Afghanistan (1994 - 2001) by Taliban was an opportunity war. The wars led to destabilization of South Asia.
After the Afghan war America stopped providing aid to Pakistan and Afghanistan leaving a political vacuum. Pakistan took advantage of the opportunity to occupy Afghanistan through its proxy Taliban.
Both America and Pakistan are now experiencing unbearable costs of wars as the opportunity wars were followed by horrible unintended consequences - the 9/11 for America and on-going insurgency in tribal areas for Pakistan. After years of letting the region in war torn flux, both America and Pakistan recently initiated steps to potentially bring peace and stability to the region.
In Part II I also discuss the potential consequences of the nuclear proliferation by Pakistan on America"s security, the opportunity costs and policies of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Part I: Post-WWII American Wars
From the end of WWII to 1980 America was directly involved in several global conflicts stemming from the Cold War. Direct engagement in wars on foreign lands became unpopular in America as it required unacceptable levels of human sacrifices and economic costs. In 1980 America tried offshore strategy of war for the first Afghanistan war and the result was 9/11.
America learned valuable lessons on how to successfully counter and defeat al Qaeda terrorists and operatives in Iraq (2003-08). In on-going Afpakia operations (2009) by increasing military forces America is forcing Taliban and al Qaeda operatives to east of Afghanistan. The restless Islamic militants are responsible for a raging insurgency in Pakistan.
American drone attacks in coordination with military operations by Pakistani army in tribal Afpakia areas are delivering desirable results to clean out terrorists in Pakistan. A number of mid-level Taliban leaders and al Qaeda collaborators including Baitullah Mehsud have been killed in drone attacks but the top Taliban and al Qaeda leadership still remains at large in Afpakia.
Elimination of the radical Islamists leadership along with building a sufficiently large Afghan force is necessary to stabilize Afpakia to protect and establish writ of elected government across all Afghanistan. A failure to eliminate al Qaeda and Taliban threat to Pakistan"s nuclear assets is a potential threat not only to stability of Pakistan but also to security of America, the West and India.
Notable Unintended Consequences
Dictionary defines collateral damage as unintended damages, injuries, or deaths caused by an action, especially unintended civilian casualties caused by a military operation. Unintended damages following wars precipitate the opportunity costs. The international wars for protecting regional hegemony have unintended consequences for the economy of participating nations.
Pakistan had used foreign economic and military aid to set up infrastructure for jihad against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. A devastating unintended consequence was that some training facilities (1990 onwards) were used by al Qaeda operatives to deliver the 2001 terrorist attack on America and the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India.
The unintended damages of the Cold War spread all across the world. Economically and militarily weakened by the losses suffered in WWII, the British and French colonial empires started its decline. Unless direct military involvement in a foreign land is concluded in a short time (e.g., the Persian Gul war of seven months in 1990-91), foreign powers are more than likely to lose it. Some other wars that had adverse impacts on the economy of foreign nations at war include the French Indo-China War (1945-54), the Korean War (1950-53) and the Vietnam War (1959-75).
Direct war engagement in foreign lands is unsustainable economic drain for any nation. A blog for "Wars of choice and necessity" by Kishan Bhatia is at http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/Wars-Choice-Necessity/blog-299.htm.
Offshore War Strategy
The public antiwar sentiments in America forced politicians of 1980s to engage in alternate strategies to counter communist expansion. Offshoring war became an option of choice.
Offshoring means with economic and military aid entire war operations are moved to a foreign country as was the case with Pakistan. American forces did not actively participate on ground in the offshore strategy of war. America off-shored the Afghan war of 1980s to Dictator Ziaul Haq and in 2002 Dictator Musharraf was assigned to clean up Taliban and al Qaeda in Afpakia. My SAAG paper #3155 discussed "Afpakia, Global Financial Crisis and Leadership in digital world (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers32%5Cpaper3155.html).
In the 2009 Afpakia war of necessity, America and NATO forces are managing war in Afghanistan and except for American drone attacks Pakistan is used to clean up leaderships of Taliban and al Qaeda in tribal Pakistan. So far the strategy is credited with a limited success. Briefly,
1. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan provided opportunity for America to offshore the first Afghanistan War (1979-89). For politically and economically motivated America it was a war of choice.
2. After war America left (1990) Pakistan and Afghanistan without any additional economic help for nation building leaving behind a war destroyed Afghanistan and a political vacuum that later turned ugly. For the American political folly unintended consequences were severe.
3. America paid a huge price in the 2001 surprise suicide attack by Arab terrorists trained in Afpakia area; they destroyed New York"s World Trade Center and damaged Pentagon.
4. America destroyed al Qaeda and Taliban regime of Emirate of Afghanistan in 2002. It off-shored cleanup operations by providing $11 billion over six years (2003-2008) to dictator Musharraf of Pakistan. The offshoring of War on Terrorism in Afghanistan to Pakistan was a fiasco. Duplicitous dictator Musharraf took American larges and helped al Qaeda and Taliban leadership regroup in tribal Pakistan across Afghanistan boarder.
5. In 2009, President Obama has committed additional American troops to Afghanistan and declared that American mission now was to clear Afpakia area of terrorist by destroying al Qaeda and Taliban leadership so that it will not be a terrorist threat to America and rest of the world. It remains to be seen if this new strategy will yield desired results.
Kerry-Lugar bill and other International Aid
In addition to costs of military operations America and NATO continues to bear other costs and the Kerry-Lugar Bill offers a framework for the other costs. Both America and international agencies are taking steps to economically stabilize the region with a substantial aid package for Pakistan. Pakistan is seeking an equivalent of the Marshall plan. If Pakistan destroys al Qaeda and Taliban from its territory, chances are America may settle for a sustained aid package similar to one for Egypt that was instituted after the Six-Day war of 1967.
The philosophy behind the Kerry-Lugar bill is similar to that of aid to Egypt to keep it from fighting with Israel. Aid is central to Washington"s relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt received over $50 billion in US largesse from 1975-2004 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html).
The bill was passed in September. It is to safeguard and protect the interests of the US. It asserts that for long-term prosperity and security it is critical to strengthen regional relationships among India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The bill offers annual $750 million per year for five years for non-security-related assistance without conditions. Briefly the bill requires:
1. No "security-related assistance may be provided. until the secretary of state. makes the certification (sec 203)."
2. The additional annual $750 million aid for five years requires the president"s special representative to certify that Pakistan is making "reasonable progress" as per the Pakistan Assistance Strategy Report.
3. It requires that
. The government of Pakistan should make progress on "preventing Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated terrorist groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad from operating in the territory of Pakistan."
. Pakistan shall "prevent proliferation of nuclear-related material and expertise".
. US assistance should not be directed to the expansion of nuclear stockpile.
. Pakistan shall "dismantle supplier networks relating to the acquisition of nuclear weapons-related materials."
. Pakistan shall make progress in "dismantling terrorist bases of operations in other parts of the country, including Quetta and Muridke.
Pakistan has started a process of compliance with the requirements of the Kerry-Lugar Bill. Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad were both banned by the government of Pakistan in 2002 but they resurfaced under different names. The enforcement officers lacked authority from its President or the parliament to act against renamed terrorist groups. An ordinance promulgated on Saturday, October 3, 2009 by President Asif Ali Zardari amending the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 stated that if "office bearers, activists or associates of a proscribed organisation form a new organisation under a different name, upon suspicion about their involvement in similar activities, the said organisation shall also be deemed to be a proscribed organisation" (Hindustan Times, October 4, 2009).
Feedback to author
References & Notes:
Author's Home Page
|
|
|
|
|