John Kerry's Recent Pakistan Visit
Published in Nawa-i-Waqt
(Pakistan) on 9 August 2013
by Lt. Gen. (R.) Abdul Qayyum (link to original)
(Pakistan) on 9 August 2013
by Lt. Gen. (R.) Abdul Qayyum (link to original)
Translated from
by Fauzia Iqbal.
Edited by Philip Lawler.
When John Kerry joined the American Navy as an officer in 1966, he immediately found himself in Vietnam. After taking part in the war there as a junior officer for four years, he realized how futile the Vietnam War was for America. Vietnam, he believed, was neither of military nor economic interest for the U.S.; nor did American national security or national interests face any threat from Vietnam. When, in accordance with his views, he started an intense campaign against the Vietnam War after 1970, military experts advocated that he should be court marshaled. They maintained his action to be illegal as he was currently a part of America's reserve force. The political leadership, however, refrained from taking any action against Kerry. After Kerry started taking part in politics, he became lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1983 and was elected to the senate in 1985. Kerry has sustained his position in the Senate and the honor that comes with it for the past 28 years.
In 1998, Kerry supported the cruise missile attacks launched by Clinton on Afghanistan and Sudan because the attacks were directed against terrorists. But Kerry was totally against such futile wars as the Vietnam War, and he is still against them. This is the reason that criticism of Bush's attack on Iraq constituted an important point of his campaign in the presidential election of 2004.
It is Kerry's view that the U.S. political leadership should have made the decision to leave Afghanistan after destroying Osama bin Laden's group in the Tora Bora area, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. George W. Bush was unsuccessful in capturing Osama bin Laden; on top of that, he left his work in Afghanistan incomplete to run after Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. This led to America's defeat.
John Kerry's recent visit to Pakistan, in my view, can prove a good beginning to improving Pakistani-U.S. relations at the diplomatic level. This hope is supported by the following circumstances:
1) Kerry, who was also the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee for the last four years, is known to be a highly polished politician and statesperson. When during an interview on Pakistan's national television he was asked what demands he had for Pakistan, he immediately responded that one does not make demands of friends. He added that we will find solutions through mutual discussion. Readers may remember that Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, had an arrogant list of "Do More" items for Pakistan. A Pakistani woman reporter had been led to compare the U.S. demands to the demands of an implacable mother-in-law.
2) America is now totally convinced of its failure in Afghanistan.
3) America is intensely aware now that the Karzai government is corrupt and inept; nor is there any doubt that after the U.S. forces leave, the Afghan National Forces will not confront the Taliban, but will join with them.
4) The U.S. is prepared to maintain 10 to 15,000 troops at five or six air bases in Afghanistan and is also planning to operate about six CIA centers. But if the Afghans gave a hard time to 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, how would these bases be allowed to operate? Readers may remember that despite the presence of over 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban penetrated an extremely important sensitive CIA center in Khost and killed six or seven of CIA's extremely experienced staff members. Maintaining any foreign troops in Afghanistan following U.S. evacuation will be extremely difficult under any circumstances. Afghanistan is neither Japan nor Korea, both of which were formally conquered by the U.S.; even today American bases are present there. History is a witness to the fact that this is not possible in Afghanistan, especially in view of America having already faced defeat in Afghanistan.
5) One ray of hope for improvement in Pakistan-U.S. relations is the presence of a new government, reflecting the aspirations of the people, in Pakistan. The leader of this government, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, has kept the purview of foreign affairs with himself. Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly expressed his desire to maintain lasting peace, not only with Afghanistan but also with India, which is worthy of praise. Politics will play a key role in improving the situation, but it is necessary that both sides show strong political will.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, peace can prevail here following evacuation by the U.S. and the allied troops, provided that the U.S. evacuation is effected through consultation with all the countries of the region. Secondly, during the interim period, free and fair elections should take place under the supervision of an international peace force. Thirdly, the Taliban should be permitted to take part in these elections. Fourthly, the U.S. should adopt the ZERO option for evacuation; there should be total evacuation.
If this does not happen then, unfortunately, civil war will continue in Afghanistan even after the U.S. evacuation because:
1) The new Afghan government elected under U.S. supervision will also be corrupt and ineffective, like the Karzai government.
2) The Afghan National Force, which includes the army, air force and navy, is not capable of keeping control of events in Afghanistan.
3) The power of the Taliban, who defeated the allied forces in Afghanistan, cannot be disregarded under any circumstances.
Following the U.S. evacuation, the Taliban are sure to challenge the warlords who support Karzai. In such a situation it will be difficult for neighboring Pakistan to avoid being affected by the murky atmosphere. The pressure of Afghan refugees will increase on Pakistan. Professional criminals as well as religious fanatics will express their unanimity with the Taliban by carrying out attacks in Pakistan. To combat such circumstances, Pakistan should start making its preparations now, without waiting for 2014, so that an acceptable solution may be found, in accord with the interests of all the stakeholders in the region. A heavy weight lies on the shoulders of Pakistan, and even more so on the U.S. political leadership. They are fighting this war on the diplomatic and political fronts. It is hoped that they will make their best efforts to discharge this responsibility successfully.
In 1998, Kerry supported the cruise missile attacks launched by Clinton on Afghanistan and Sudan because the attacks were directed against terrorists. But Kerry was totally against such futile wars as the Vietnam War, and he is still against them. This is the reason that criticism of Bush's attack on Iraq constituted an important point of his campaign in the presidential election of 2004.
It is Kerry's view that the U.S. political leadership should have made the decision to leave Afghanistan after destroying Osama bin Laden's group in the Tora Bora area, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. George W. Bush was unsuccessful in capturing Osama bin Laden; on top of that, he left his work in Afghanistan incomplete to run after Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. This led to America's defeat.
John Kerry's recent visit to Pakistan, in my view, can prove a good beginning to improving Pakistani-U.S. relations at the diplomatic level. This hope is supported by the following circumstances:
1) Kerry, who was also the chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee for the last four years, is known to be a highly polished politician and statesperson. When during an interview on Pakistan's national television he was asked what demands he had for Pakistan, he immediately responded that one does not make demands of friends. He added that we will find solutions through mutual discussion. Readers may remember that Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, had an arrogant list of "Do More" items for Pakistan. A Pakistani woman reporter had been led to compare the U.S. demands to the demands of an implacable mother-in-law.
2) America is now totally convinced of its failure in Afghanistan.
3) America is intensely aware now that the Karzai government is corrupt and inept; nor is there any doubt that after the U.S. forces leave, the Afghan National Forces will not confront the Taliban, but will join with them.
4) The U.S. is prepared to maintain 10 to 15,000 troops at five or six air bases in Afghanistan and is also planning to operate about six CIA centers. But if the Afghans gave a hard time to 150,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, how would these bases be allowed to operate? Readers may remember that despite the presence of over 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Taliban penetrated an extremely important sensitive CIA center in Khost and killed six or seven of CIA's extremely experienced staff members. Maintaining any foreign troops in Afghanistan following U.S. evacuation will be extremely difficult under any circumstances. Afghanistan is neither Japan nor Korea, both of which were formally conquered by the U.S.; even today American bases are present there. History is a witness to the fact that this is not possible in Afghanistan, especially in view of America having already faced defeat in Afghanistan.
5) One ray of hope for improvement in Pakistan-U.S. relations is the presence of a new government, reflecting the aspirations of the people, in Pakistan. The leader of this government, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, has kept the purview of foreign affairs with himself. Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly expressed his desire to maintain lasting peace, not only with Afghanistan but also with India, which is worthy of praise. Politics will play a key role in improving the situation, but it is necessary that both sides show strong political will.
As far as Afghanistan is concerned, peace can prevail here following evacuation by the U.S. and the allied troops, provided that the U.S. evacuation is effected through consultation with all the countries of the region. Secondly, during the interim period, free and fair elections should take place under the supervision of an international peace force. Thirdly, the Taliban should be permitted to take part in these elections. Fourthly, the U.S. should adopt the ZERO option for evacuation; there should be total evacuation.
If this does not happen then, unfortunately, civil war will continue in Afghanistan even after the U.S. evacuation because:
1) The new Afghan government elected under U.S. supervision will also be corrupt and ineffective, like the Karzai government.
2) The Afghan National Force, which includes the army, air force and navy, is not capable of keeping control of events in Afghanistan.
3) The power of the Taliban, who defeated the allied forces in Afghanistan, cannot be disregarded under any circumstances.
Following the U.S. evacuation, the Taliban are sure to challenge the warlords who support Karzai. In such a situation it will be difficult for neighboring Pakistan to avoid being affected by the murky atmosphere. The pressure of Afghan refugees will increase on Pakistan. Professional criminals as well as religious fanatics will express their unanimity with the Taliban by carrying out attacks in Pakistan. To combat such circumstances, Pakistan should start making its preparations now, without waiting for 2014, so that an acceptable solution may be found, in accord with the interests of all the stakeholders in the region. A heavy weight lies on the shoulders of Pakistan, and even more so on the U.S. political leadership. They are fighting this war on the diplomatic and political fronts. It is hoped that they will make their best efforts to discharge this responsibility successfully.
Next article![]( "Detroit: A Slow Fall")
