“… designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime … we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places … At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan …”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate, while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic, this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream.” Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that “Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today, critics are asking the question, “Is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Reverend Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence”:

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor – both black and white – through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as, “the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. They dubbed this invasion Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 41’ told the American people that the US strikes were,

“…designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… ”

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. “It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan.” I believe that this tactic was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to the “soft on defense” hawkish critics on the other side. As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make.

After the historic election of President Obama, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Dream”. Some mistakenly saw this election as the fulfillment of that Dream”; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s “race neutral” approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today critics are asking the question “is the Obama administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan/Pakistan going to be their Vietnam?” As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan/Pakistan with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris, and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam? Here’s what the Rev. Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, “If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists.” The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009.

President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks. In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan/Pakistan as,

“the most dangerous place in the world….This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida’s leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.”

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded.

According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in central Asia. In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. According to a description published in the North American Review in 1842,

On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave. On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued…

In most recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial deployment of the Soviet 40th Army began in Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahideen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15, 1989.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not “disrupt(ed) the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations”. The US has not been able to successfully “attack the military capability of the Taliban regime”.

What the US has done is lose 1147 coalition forces; US Air Force data shows that Munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from 2004 to 2007, tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons. According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.

In terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon reports, the price tag for running the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in Iraq next year. America can not afford this folly. As the Rev. Dr. King would say; then came the buildup in Afghanistan/Pakistan and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war…

The US and its allies could “disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…” if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.

Richard Holbrooke, considered the architect of peace in Bosnia, was due to meet President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and military chiefs, the foreign ministry said.

US President Barack Obama has called Afghanistan the main front in the “war on terror” and plans to send a further 30,000 troops there, doubling the US contingent fighting a Taliban-led insurgency along with NATO forces.

Holbrooke will hold top-level talks in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India before “reporting back” to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Obama.

“I am here to listen and learn the ground realities of this critically important country,” Holbrooke was quoted as saying in a statement released by the US embassy after his arrival in Islamabad late Monday.

“The United States looks forward to reviewing our policies and renewing our commitment and friendship with the people of Pakistan,” he added.

The foreign ministry said Islamabad was looking for fresh perspective on security, stability and development, to address “militancy, terrorism and extremism effectively” in a “comprehensive and holistic strategy”.

But Holbrooke will likely face criticism from a civilian government worried that US missile strikes against militant targets on its territory will exacerbate its domestic problems and unpopularity.

Islamabad’s relations with Washington and Kabul have been strained over accusations that Pakistan is not doing enough to eradicate Islamist “safe havens” on its territory.

Pakistan, reeling from attacks that have killed more than 1,500 people in 20 months, has welcomed the US policy review.

Holbrooke’s mission will be further complicated by an escalating blame game between India and Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks, which New Delhi has blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

The United States has also expressed concern that nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s atomic bomb who was freed from house arrest last week, will not be involved in nuclear proliferation.

“What is required in my view is new ideas, better coordination within the US government, better coordination with our NATO allies and other concerned countries, and the time to get it right,” Holbrooke said in Germany on Sunday.

“Pakistan’s situation is dire,” he said. “It needs international assistance, international sympathy and international support.”

Pakistan wants the US missile attacks to end, US aid (10 billion dollars under ex-ruler Pervez Musharraf) and renewed diplomacy on Kashmir, an issue at the heart of its troubles with India but which Washington says is not within Holbrooke’s mandate.

Islamabad said Monday its investigators needed more information from India to complete a probe into the Mumbai attacks in November, when 10 gunmen killed 165 people during a 60-hour siege.

New Delhi blamed the attacks on the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is active in Indian-ruled Kashmir, but the outfit has denied responsibility.

Islamabad is under intense pressure from Washington, other western nations and Kabul to eliminate Taliban and Al-Qaeda havens in the tribal belt, from where fighters are said to stage attacks on foreign forces in Afghanistan.

But experts say Pakistan’s desire to please the United States, a vital political and military ally, has run up against its own strategic interests in the region and its loyalty to Pashtuns, the predominant ethnicity among the Taliban.

“Pakistan’s Taliban policy has suffered from indecisiveness, inconsistency and ambiguity,” political analyst Hasan Askari told AFP.

“Pakistan’s choices will become tougher in the future because its efforts to control the Taliban do not enjoy support throughout society. A good number of ordinary people see India as more of a threat than the Taliban.”

The extremist Taliban movement emerged in the mid-1990s from Islamic schools along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and — with Islamabad’s support — eventually seized power in Kabul in 1996.

At the time, Pakistan’s security establishment wanted a pro-Islamabad regime in Kabul that would give the country a foothold in Afghanistan, and much-needed strategic depth in the region to use against its nuclear-armed rival India.

President Pervez Musharraf disowned the regime following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States — carried out by Al-Qaeda which was being harboured by the Taliban.

However, he allowed thousands of Taliban to enter his country’s northwest tribal belt after their ouster in a US-led invasion in late 2001.

“Pakistan did not want to sever all of its links with the Taliban movement, as doing so would have Pakistan totally out of the regional power game in Afghanistan,” defence analyst Riffat Hussain told AFP.

Fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is still widely believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas.

“Tens of thousands of Taliban poured into Pakistan’s northwest and southwest but security forces were under strict orders only to arrest Al-Qaeda members,” a senior security official with knowledge of counter-terrorism policy told AFP.

Hussain, head of strategic studies at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, said former military ruler Musharraf, who resigned last year, had two reasons for tolerating the militants’ presence on Pakistani soil.

“Musharraf personally believed that there were many good Taliban who should be co-opted in the post-Taliban power dispensation in Afghanistan,” Hussain said.

Islamabad also wanted an “insurance policy” against the US-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which it viewed as hostile, he added.

Another security official said that barring the Taliban from Pakistani soil would have angered ethnic Pashtuns at home, saying: “Antagonising them completely is against our long-term national interest.”

But putting up with the Taliban was a risky policy, and security officials say it has backfired, as the extremists formed alliances with other militant groups and started attacking Pakistani targets.

Those militant groups — such as that of renegade warlord Baitullah Mehsud, believed to have masterminded the assassination of Pakistani former premier Benazir Bhutto — are now allied with the Al-Qaeda network.

“For years Pakistan targeted Al-Qaeda and tolerated the Taliban, but this policy has failed and resulted in making the Taliban a strong force not just in Afghanistan, but in many parts of Pakistan,” a top security official told AFP.

Musharraf’s successor Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani now must review Pakistan’s role in the US-led “war on terror,” which may mean a rethink on the Taliban.

“Pakistan will be asked to become the anvil for the hammer of American special forces operations in the tribal areas,” Hussain said, predicting that Islamabad could be asked to stage joint anti-militant operations with the US.

Askari agreed, but said Islamabad would ask Washington to put a stop to attacks on militant targets in the border zone by unmanned CIA aircraft because “they create credibility problems” for the Pakistani government.

“Pakistan faces a double challenge — controlling the Taliban in the tribal areas and containing militant groups based in mainland Pakistan,” Askari said.

“Unless there is a simultaneous development of internal stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the problem may not be addressed.” – AFP

The attack on the outskirts of the city of Peshawar was the first since Pakistan launched a massive military operation late last month in the rugged Khyber tribal region bordering Afgahanistan to clear militants from the area.

That offensive was mounted after a series of spectacular attacks on depots in and around Peshawar in which hundreds of vehicles used to ferry supplies to NATO and US forces in Afghanistan were torched.

“The militants fired six rockets on a NATO terminal during the night. One truck was hit and it caught fire, while three other vehicles suffered minor damage,” senior police officer Fida Mohammad told AFP.

Police and paramilitary soldiers tracked down the attackers and a brief gun battle ensued, he said. After about 30 minutes, the militants fled.

There were no reports of any casualties, the officer said.

Authorities were forced to close the highway linking Peshawar to the Afghan border town of Torkham for several days at the height of the army offensive in the Khyber area. It was reopened during daylight hours on January 5.

The bulk of the supplies and equipment required by NATO and US-led forces battling the Taliban insurgency are transported to Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass.

But the Peshawar-Torkham Road passes through the heart of Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone, where extremists sought refuge after Afghanistan’s hardline Taliban regime was ousted in a US-led invasion at the end of 2001.

Seven suspected Taliban militants were also arrested in the operation in the northwestern town of Jamrud, the gateway to the famed Khyber Pass linking Pakistan and Afghanistan, the senior security official told AFP.

“The van was packed from floor to ceiling with explosives weighing around 1,000 kilogrammes,” or 2,200 pounds, the official said, adding that detonators were attached to the explosives.

“The van could have been used during Muharram and caused many deaths if this huge amount of explosives had been detonated,” he said, referring to the Muslim mourning period currently being observed in Pakistan.

Security forces launched the operation in the rugged Khyber tribal area near Jamrud last week, following a series of attacks on truck depots in and around the city of Peshawar that saw hundreds of NATO vehicles and containers torched.

The anti-militant offensive forced the closure of the highway from Peshawar to the border town of Torkham, blocking NATO supply trucks from reaching Afghanistan.

But the road has been open for a few hours a day since Friday during daylight breaks in the curfew that has been imposed on Jamrud until the military operation is complete.

The security official said the seven men arrested were members of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, the country’s umbrella Taliban group led by militant warlord Baitullah Mehsud.

Mehsud was accused by the previous Pakistani government and US officials of plotting the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, who was killed in a gun and suicide attack in Rawalpindi in December 2007.