Will the Taliban come to the negotiating table? And what does the world think about Pakistan's role in Afghanistan? Find out in an exclusive interview with the former UN mission chief in Afghanistan, Kai Eide.

Will the Taliban come to the negotiating table? And what does the world think about Pakistan's role in Afghanistan? Find out in an exclusive interview with the former UN mission chief in Afghanistan, Kai Eide.

Has Zardari joined hands with Taliban?

Has Zardari joined hands with Taliban?

Major-General Sajjad Ghani, who is leading the offensive in the upper part of Swat valley, said people in neighbouring Kalam valley and Lower Dir district were raising their own militias, commonly known as lashkars, to confront the militants, Reuters reports

‘They are resolutely defending against the advance of the Taliban. That’s the silver lining that I can see,’ he told reporters during a trip to Swat arranged by the military.

In a sign of growing hostility, villagers in Kalam and Lower Dir have tried to expel the gunmen.

Several people were killed or wounded in a clash between armed villagers and Taliban fighters in Kalam on Thursday, provincial assembly member Jafar Shah told Reuters.

Villagers had made a similar stand in parts of Lower Dir, to the west of Swat, and the Taliban had pulled out of some areas, a provincial government official there said.

‘Today they stand isolated, not only in the valley but also at the national scene. I think this is a big achievement of the government as well as the military,’ military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas said.

Ghani said civilian casualties were ‘less than double figures’ in areas under his command.

Ghani said two major militant strongholds had been secured in upper Swat and people who had fled the area would soon be asked to return to their homes.

Ghani said the military was determined to eliminate the Taliban and ruled out the possibility of any talks or a ceasefire with the militants.

‘This time it has been decided to take the operation to its logical conclusion aimed at eliminating the terrorists,’ he said.

“… 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.

The six-month battle with Islamist insurgents in the remote Bajaur district is seen as pivotal to the country’s fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, after bombings have killed more than 1,600 people in less than two years.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan’s government launched the Bajaur offensive in August amid heavy criticism from US and Afghan officials who say it is not doing enough to stop militants crossing into Afghanistan to attack foreign troops.

Heavy artillery and helicopter gunships have pounded Bajaur, one of Pakistan’s seven federally-administered tribal areas (FATA) along the Afghan border, in a bid to flush out militant bases, killing hundreds.

“We think that we have secured this agency (district),” said Major General Tariq Khan, the commander of forces fighting in Bajaur.

“They have lost. They have lost their cohesion out here,” Khan told reporters flown by helicopters from the capital, Islamabad.

A Pakistani army colonel named Saifullah, who gave only one name, said the military had also beaten back militants in the neighbouring tribal area of Mohmand, also on the Afghan border, where security forces have been waging lower-level offensives.

“Now the people’s minds are clear. They now believe in the strength of the force and the resolve of the government that this militancy is being pursued and is being finished,” he told reporters in Ghallanai.

“The influence of militants has reduced over a major proportion of the population and area,” the colonel added.

Pakistan is facing increased US pressure to clampdown on militant hideouts with President Barack Obama deploying an extra 17,000 troops to Afghanistan as part of a major shift in its action against global terrorist networks from Iraq to south Asia.

There was no independent verification of the Bajaur victory but the Taliban see the district as a key strategic district they cannot not afford to lose, analysts have said.

To the east is Swat, where the Taliban have called an indefinite ceasefire following a nearly two-year insurgency, while on the Afghan side is a long frontier with the Taliban hotspot of Kunar province.

Khan recommended fencing the rugged and porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent the cross-border movement of Taliban militants.

He said troops would withdraw gradually but not pull out for some time, speculating that military operations in five of Pakistan’s seven wild tribal districts could finish by the end of the year.

In Bajaur, 97 soldiers from the Pakistan army and the paramilitary Frontier Corps have been killed, while 404 troops were injured, he said.

Khan said about 50 percent of the militants were Afghans and some Sudanese and Egyptians had been killed in Bajaur in the initial stages of operation.

He described a unilateral ceasefire declared by the Taliban on Monday as “a face-saving statement”.

“There was no question of ceasefire, the resistance has melted, dissolved. It is not there,” he said.

Shafir Ullah, the chief of the Bajaur civil administration, said 1,600 militants were killed during the campaign and more than 2,000 injured while some 150 civilians also died and about 2,000 were injured in the fighting.

The pitched battles and bombardment had destroyed about 5,000 homes in Bajaur, which is home to about one million people, Ullah said.

Ullah appealed for international donors to come forward with money for reconstruction and the provision of basic services such as electricity and water to 304,598 people displaced from their homes in Bajaur.

The official said more than 180,000 had returned.

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