TO SUCCEED IN AFGHANISTAN UNITED STATES WILL FIRST NEED TO UNDO ITS NEFARIOUS SOUTH ASIAN POLICIES OF THE 1990s

For the following major US and ISAF losses in one day in Afghanistan:
· Oct 2009: Eight US die in Taliban attack in Nuristan, eastern Afghanistan close to Pak border;
· Sept 2009: Six Italian soldiers die in suicide bomb in Kabul;
· Aug 2008: Ten French troops killed in ambush in Sarobi, east of Kabul;
· July 2008: Nine US soldiers die in militant siege in Wanar, bordering Nuristan and Wanar provinces;
· Nov 2007: Six US soldiers and three Afghan troops killed in ambush;
· July 2007: Six Canadian soldiers and Afghan interpreter die when vehicle hits IED in Kandahar province;
· May 2007: Five US, one UK, one Canadian soldier die in hostile attack on helicopter in Helmand province;
· June 2005: Sixteen US soldiers die in attack on helicopter in Konar province; and counting…..

if one had to point toward one major reason, then it would have to be the former President Bill Clinton. And, this is not being said because one is anti-Democrat or pro-Republican. Any impartial, objective analysis of US policies in South Asian region of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan would unequivocally bring out that in 1990s United States pursued a nefarious policy of ‘overlook what Pakistan (and Saudi) is doing in the region’.

Since the buck stops at the table of US President, therefore, the responsibility of policy of deliberate callous indifference towards the diabolical games played by Pakistan in ‘90s must be attributed to then US President – Clinton. Clinton’s era was one of the worst from US foreign policy perspective.

What happened on 9/11 was the direct consequence of Clinton administration's callous indifference alluded to above. President Bush went in to Afghanistan like a mad bull in rage. However, he continued to indulge Pakistani leadership and get fooled (most of the time knowingly) by Pakistani chicanery.

Either Bush was incapable or he was, like his Republican predecessors, more anti-Indian; whatever it was he could not unravel the rogue Pakistan was (and is). Like a fool he continued to play in the hands of the Pakistanis. Result? US and ISAF continued to bleed in Afghanistan.

But Bush's Afghanistan strategy was more of a band aid because he had not fathomed the Clinton-era mistakes nor he had the inclination to do so either. He had no clue of what would be the best strategy or what it should be predicated on! He was too bogged down in Iraq, and he and his advisers were too incapable of figuring out anything sensible beyond Iraq.

Going back to Clinton - regardless of whatever the so-called biographers of Bill Clinton may say or write about the characteristics of the former President, one thing is for sure – Clinton had a pathological aversion (or shall we say, inability) to taking major decisions, especially, related to military geo-politics. Clinton exhibited classic ostrich-like behaviour when it came to dealing with potential or real armed conflict issues.

Clinton liked to be an ‘escapist’ (probably he still does) and under the self-created illusion that everything is fine devilishly revelled in procrastination and avoidance. In case of South Asian region he deliberately overlooked what was going on in the region. Following were some of the notable situations:
· Pakistan was aiding Taliban to overrun Afghanistan so as to control that area indirectly;
· Saudi Arabia was promoting radical Islam (Wahabism) by pumping money in that region (and elsewhere in the moderate Islamic communities);
· Pakistan was fostering terrorism in Kashmir and countless innocent Indians were dying;
· Pakistan, through its nuclear scientist A. Q. Khan, was not only developing its own nuclear capability but also transferring the deadly technology to North Korea, Iran and others;
· Pakistan was channelling US military and civilian aid to further its own military build up;
· Pakistan’s Shia politicians were colluding with Iran to help expand its influence in the region.

It will be disastrous to assume that CIA did not know about the above and much more and was not keeping the President and his advisers informed (if CIA indeed failed to notice and/or track the above, then God bless the US!). But President Clinton chose to overlook all this. Why? Possibly because apart from being an incorrigible ‘escapist’ that he was, he thought that there was NO potential direct (or may even indirect) impact on an American due to whatever Pakistan or Saudi Arabia was doing!! He thought “oh why bother, things are happening thousands of miles away from US shores”.

But this psychopathic philanderer probably forgot what the geniuses of political science have said from ancient times – be it Chanakya or Sun Tzu – to the modern times that to maintain political and military influence one needs to anticipate far ahead what can happen in the coming times. Sun Tzu mentions at one place in his book (The Art of War): ...A leader must be “serene and inscrutable" and capable of comprehending "unfathomable plans".

But then that’s the price a country pays for electing someone whose dick reigns rather than the cerebral competencies. If history is impartial and someday people reflect on past presidents of US, there will be a general consensus that Clinton’s era was a disaster in terms of statesmanship and foreign policy; Clinton failed miserably in its task of protecting US by failing to anticipate and act proactively where it was required.
[Sidebar comment: The so-called economic prosperity seen during Clinton presidency was a result of previous policies already put in place, he was just lucky to reap the fruits]

One may ask, why bring in all the past, Clinton and all, in today’s discussion on Afghanistan strategy? Again, the answer is simple: if you don’t analyze what might have been the cause for a given current situation, how do you assess and arrive at the best option! And, mind you, the top US general in the region Gen Stanley McChrystal is asking for a "dramatically different" strategy to ensure success there.

So, how do you arrive at a "dramatically different" strategy if you don’t know what went wrong in the first place; if you don’t know what has been going on for all these years in the region? What are the areas that need to be fixed to achieve success of the mission? If President Obama and his advisers want to arrive at the ‘best’ option, they will have to look at the past with an open and impartial mind, analyze with the mind set of nobody is a ‘holy cow’, explode old shibboleths, and then come to the conclusion on the best path forward.

Taliban can be defeated. And by the way, President Obama keeps harping on the word Al-Qaeda without mentioning Taliban in his speeches. One hopes he knows that ‘real’ enemy of US and ISAF are the Taliban, Al-Qaeda are just riding piggy back to synergize and cause maximum damage. Anyway, back to Afghanistan: US and the international community can defeat the Islamic radical monsters – created to a large extent by the aid and abetment of Pakistan and Saudis – but it would need a sustained campaign.

How should that campaign be run, that will be the subject of next blog.