Afghan Ordeal

Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 28 July 2010
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Arie Braizblot . Edited by Jessica Boesl.
The leaked documents confirm Pakistan’s double game and the worrisome course of the war.

The leak of several thousand Pentagon documents about the war in Afghanistan means a new misfortune for Barack Obama’s strategy in that country. Not because the documents contain unexpected revelations, but because they confirm what was much more than a suspicion: Pakistan’s ambiguous role in the fight against the Taliban. Even though the divulged material mostly refers to events that occurred under the Bush administration, its contents show the weakest flanks of Obama's military strategy, which bets on major involvement of Pakistan. However, as the documents confirm, that doesn’t mean the entire Pakistani state apparatus is in favor of strengthening this alliance. Sectors of the military and the intelligence services arrange their own strategies, based on a difficult equilibrium between Washington and the Taliban. If the authenticity of these very compromising testimonies is confirmed, instead of equilibrium, it would be necessary to talk about complicity.

The Taliban learned from their confrontation with the Soviet Union that an insurgent group can be victorious by simply not losing the war, while a regular military is obligated to win it in order to not concede defeat. This is where Pakistan plays a determining role in not prolonging the situation of permanent boards that finance the Taliban and proportionately weaken the United States. A country that doubted the viability and direction of the mission in Afghanistan has found, in these leaked documents, an additional argument to reaffirm its skepticism. However, past mistakes should not serve as excuses for an improvised abandonment without at least trying to mitigate the consequences.

In addition, the documents about Afghanistan leaked by the web page Wikileaks confirm the occurrence of more civilian casualties than have been acknowledged by American forces. Apart from the responsibilities that would have to be met, and despite the fact that no one appears ready to ask for explanations from an ally, the figures show that “winning the hearts” of the Afghans is a useless effort for a military during a war. Obama signaled next year as the deadline to begin withdrawal. Barring unforeseen events, this leak will not alter those plans. But the situation demonstrates the ordeal that must be endured.


Calvario afgano

Los papeles filtrados confirman el doble juego de Pakistán y la preocupante deriva de la guerra
La filtración de varias decenas de miles de documentos del Pentágono sobre la guerra de Afganistán supone un nuevo contratiempo para la estrategia de Barack Obama en aquel país. No porque los documentos contengan inesperadas revelaciones, sino porque confirman lo que era mucho más que una sospecha: la ambigüedad de Pakistán en la lucha contra los talibanes. Aunque el material divulgado se refiere básicamente a hechos acaecidos durante el mandato de George Bush, su contenido muestra el flanco más débil de la opción militar de Obama, quien apostó por una mayor implicación de Islamabad. Pero, como corroboran los documentos, ello no significa que la totalidad del aparato estatal paquistaní esté a favor de reforzar esta alianza. Sectores del Ejército y de los servicios secretos disponen de una estrategia propia, basada en un difícil equilibrio entre Washington y los talibanes. Si se confirma la autenticidad de los testimonios más comprometedores, más que de equilibrio habría que hablar de complicidad.

Los talibanes aprendieron en su enfrentamiento con la Unión Soviética que un grupo insurgente tiene bastante con no perder la guerra para obtener una victoria, mientras que un Ejército regular está obligado a ganarla para no cosechar una derrota. De ahí que el papel de Pakistán resulte determinante para no prolongar una situación de tablas permanentes que afianza a los talibanes en la misma proporción que debilita a EE UU. Un país que dudaba de la viabilidad y del sentido de la misión en Afganistán ha encontrado en los documentos filtrados un argumento adicional para reafirmarse en su escepticismo. Y, sin embargo, los errores pasados no deberían servir para cometer el definitivo: un abandono improvisado que no intente al menos mitigar las consecuencias.

Los papeles de Afganistán filtrados por la web Wikileaks confirman, además, la existencia de un número mayor de bajas civiles que el reconocido por las fuerzas estadounidenses. Aparte de las responsabilidades que tendrían que depurarse, por más que nadie parezca dispuesto a pedir cuentas a un aliado, las cifras demuestran que "ganar los corazones" de los afganos es un empeño inútil para un Ejército en misión de guerra. Obama ha señalado el próximo año como fecha límite para iniciar la retirada. Salvo imprevistos, la filtración no alterará estos planes. Pero da cuenta del calvario que queda por vivir.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump’s Failure

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Mexico: Urgent and Important

Canada: No, the Fed Was Not ‘Independent’ before Trump

Austria: The US Courts Are the Last Bastion of Resistance

       

Topics

Israel: Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias: Congress Opens Investigation against Wikipedia

Spain: Trump, Xi and the Art of Immortality

Germany: We Should Take Advantage of Trump’s Vacuum*

Sri Lanka: Qatar under Attack: Is US Still a Reliable Ally?

Taiwan: Trump’s Talk of Legality Is a Joke

Austria: The US Courts Are the Last Bastion of Resistance

       

Poland: Marek Kutarba: Donald Trump Makes Promises to Karol Nawrocki. But Did He Run Them by Putin?

El Salvador: The Game of Chess between the US and Venezuela Continues

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?