Afghanistan: wheels within wheels?

2010-12-21 00:00

PRESIDENT Barack Obama seems to be working under a serious misapprehension. Releasing the White House’s annual strategic review to the public on December 16, he declared that United States policy in Afghanistan is “on track” to defeat Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Who told him that the U.S. is fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

“It was Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda plotted the 9/11 attacks that murdered 3 000 innocent people,” he said, which is an accurate historical statement.

“It is the tribal regions along the Afghan-Pakistan border from which terrorists have launched more attacks against our homeland and our allies,” Obama continued. Note the leap of logic: suddenly, he’s no longer talking about Afghanistan, but about the “Afghan-Pakistan border”. In fact, he’s really only talking about the Pakistani side of that frontier, which American forces could not control even if they killed every insurgent in Afghanistan.

“And if an even wider insurgency were to engulf Afghanistan, that would give Al-Qaeda even more space to plan these attacks,” Obama concluded. Maybe, but why would Al-Qaeda want more space to plan its attacks? If it actually wants more space, Al-Qaeda could easily increase its presence in Somalia, for example, but western Pakistan is quite big enough to hide in. Pakistan also has big, busy airports where Al-Qaeda recruits can slip into and out of the country, and it’s far too big for the U.S. to invade. So what would be the point of winning a war against the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, even if Obama’s apparent belief that it is just the Afghan branch of Al-Qaeda were correct?

So long as the U.S. does not control every square metre of Pakistan — and it never will — the only way to prevent Al-Qaeda attacks will remain good intelligence gathering, not heavily armed U.S. troops clattering around in foreign countries. Indeed, good intelligence work is always the best way to stop terrorist attacks.

But what if the Taliban does gain control of at least part of Afghanistan after Western troops leave? It wouldn’t matter all that much, because having “even more space to plan these attacks” wouldn’t make Al-Qaeda any more dangerous. “Bases” are a conventional military concept that is virtually irrelevant in terrorist strategies.

In any case, it’s unlikely that a victorious Taliban insurgency would really invite Al-Qaeda to set up in Afghanistan again. The Taliban shares many of Al-Qaeda’s ideas, but its actual situation would be very different — just as it was before 2001.

Al-Qaeda’s members were (and still are) revolutionaries trying to win power, mainly in Arab countries. Back then, they were getting nowhere because they lacked popular support. The 9/11 attacks were intended to sucker the U.S. into invading a Muslim country, in order to inflame Muslim opinion against Washington and the governments it backs in the Arab world. Then, perhaps, some of Al-Qaeda’s stalled revolutions might actually happen,

No surprise there. That’s a standard terrorist strategy, although few people in Washington seem to realise it. But the Taliban was already in power. It didn’t need a revolution. Why would it back an Al-Qaeda operation that would trigger a U.S. invasion and get it driven from power? It’s very unlikely that the Taliban even knew about it in advance.

But if the Taliban was not involved in Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on the U.S. even back then, it’s hardly credible that it would support such attacks now. Does Obama understand that? It doesn’t sound like it — but then, Obama could never offer this analysis even if he shared it.

The simplistic mythology about Al-Qaeda’s motives that was disseminated by the Bush administration — “they are Islamic crazies who attack us because they hate our values” — has taken such deep root in the American population that Obama cannot argue with it in public. He cannot say that what happens in Afghanistan after the Americans leave hardly matters to the U.S. But he may understand it in private. Consider the comment in the strategy review that the U.S. has made enough progress in Afghanistan to start a “responsible reduction” of forces in July 2011. That is nonsense: there has been no serious progress, and the Taliban will know it.

But it may be a coded signal to the Taliban that Obama wants to get out, but cannot do so if the Taliban is looking too successful. So stay low for a while, please, and we’ll soon be out of your hair.

• Gwynne Dyer’s latest book, Climat­e Wars, is distributed in most of the world by Oneworld.

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.

24.com publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
0 comments
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

 
/News

Book flights

Compare, Book, Fly

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.
 
English
Afrikaans
isiZulu

Hello 

Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.


Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Settings

Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.




Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.