US President Barack Obama took the podium at a White House press conference and stood with the confidence that often accompanies new presidents. He was flanked by two leaders, whose importance barely reflected their embattled leaderships on the ground: Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
The meeting at the White House on May 6 was designed to give the impression that the new US administration is both “serious” and “committed” to resolving the crises plaguing Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Obama declared the meeting “extraordinarily productive,” as the three nations, he said, were united by the common goal to “defeat Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”
The skewed reading of reality didn’t cease there. “I am pleased that these two men, elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it,” Obama said. Both leaders listened solemnly as if to reflect the level of their “seriousness.”
For a fleeting moment one did in fact hope that Obama would bring with him more than new language and an entirely new take on US foreign policy. That hope is already in tatters.
“Obama conveyed the right message last week by hosting Afghan President Karzai and Pakistani President Zardari. The meeting at the White House reflected the close link between Pakistan and the anti-Taleban struggle in Afghanistan. Indeed, nests of Taleban, Al-Qaeda and other extremists sheltering on the Pakistani side of the border have become a grave threat to Pakistan itself,” opined a Boston Globe editorial, an old rationale that for years pervaded US foreign policy circles. But the Globe also counseled: “As recent events suggest, US military strikes against militants in both countries inevitably provoke anger and indignation among civilians.” And that is what the US media and the US administration are also willing to concede.
If one is to look for a major difference in the Bush and Obama administrations concerning Afghanistan, it’s the fact that Obama apologizes when the number of innocent civilians killed by US airstrikes is too harrowing to ignore. Another notable difference is that he has committed 17,000 additional troops to the already war-devastated country, promising more bloodshed.
“I wish to express my personal regret and certainly the sympathy of our administration on the loss of civilian lives in Afghanistan,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in her public apology following the killing of over 100 civilians in two Afghan villages on May 4. The apology, however, was obliquely qualified by the US military in comments made by Tech Sgt. Chuck Marsh on May 9. “Reports also indicate that Taleban fighters deliberately forced villagers into houses from which they then attacked ANSF and coalition forces,” he said. So, somehow, the US is still not responsible.
Now the war is flaring up in Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistani families have fled the area, and the main town of Mingora has been virtually emptied of its inhabitants. Reuters reported, “Pakistani forces attacked Taleban fighters in the Swat Valley with artillery and helicopters after the United States called on the government to show its commitment to fighting militancy.” One has to wonder who is giving the orders in this foolish war, anyway. Moreover, does Obama genuinely think that the Pakistani “Taleban” could be defeated using the exact approach that failed against the Taleban of Afghanistan?
The escalation in Pakistan was not entirely surprising, however, as US officials and media pundits have been adamant in advising the new administration that it was not Afghanistan that posed the greater threat to US interests, but Pakistan. It was similar to the attitude of neoconservatives in the Bush administration after its failure in Iraq. It was not Iraq that the US should have attacked, but Iran, they tirelessly parroted, hoping to generate yet another war.
What we are not told, however, is that unremitting US bombings of the utterly poor and neglected northern provinces of Pakistan have produced untold animosity toward the US and its central government allies. It provoked, in some areas, total chaos and lawlessness, which in turn gave rise to the Pakistani “Taleban”. History is repeating itself, but the US administration is taking no notice of the obvious pattern.
A Pakistan writer, Abd Al-Ghafar Aziz wrote for Al-Jazeera’s Arabic website: “Since the US attack on Afghanistan, the province (of Balochistan) has been accused of supporting terrorism and harboring the leaders of Taleban and Al-Qaeda. Since then, US planes, especially drones, have been striking what it calls ‘precious targets’, resulting in the deaths of over 15,000 people.” Aziz described the people of that region “like orphans without shelter and without protection.” Naturally, tribe leaders, militant groups and others moved to fill the gap.
If there is one outstanding similarity between the Afghan and Pakistan cases, it is the fact that the US is using the same flawed logic — responding to delicate conflicts with bullets. If the new administration is keenly interested in reversing the misfortunes of that region, it has to understand the uniqueness of every country and appreciate the untold harm inflicted on civilians by the US and other militaries. Only dialogue and truly respecting the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Pakistan can begin to stabilize the fractious situation.
There are an estimated one million Pakistanis already on the run in the northern and eastern parts of the country. They are threatened by fighting, hunger and all sorts of predators, such as US drones circling overhead.
— Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
