June 26, 2012
Pakistan’s Impending Defeat in Afghanistan
Ashley J. Tellis at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:
Irrespective of how the coming security transition in Afghanistan pans out, one country is on a surprising course to a major strategic defeat: Pakistan. Every foreseeable ending to the Afghan war today—continued conflict with the Taliban, restoration of Taliban control in the southern and eastern provinces, or a nationwide civil war—portends nothing but serious perils for Islamabad. But judging from Pakistan’s behavior, it appears as if this fact has eluded the generals in Rawalpindi.
Ever since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan has had one simple strategic goal on its western frontier: ensuring that Afghanistan remains a stable but subordinate entity deferential to Pakistan’s sensitivities on all matters of national security. Such deference was sought for a host of reasons. Islamabad wanted a guarantee that Kabul would not reignite the dispute over the countries’ common border (the Durand Line) and would not seek to mobilize the region’s Pashtun populations in support of either absorption into Afghanistan or the creation of a new nation. The Pakistani leadership also aimed to ensure that Afghanistan would not enter into close geopolitical affiliations with other, more powerful countries, such as the United States or India, in order to increase Kabul’s autonomy from Islamabad.
Amid the chaos that emerged after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan settled on supporting the Afghan Taliban as its strategic instrument for securing Kabul’s compliance with its objectives.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 10:24 AM | Permalink
Comments
Overstrech is a recipe for disaster to be sure. Afghanistan is a resource-free backwater and part of the reason why it's been the "graveyard of empires" is that every last one of those empires came to the conclusion that the game is not worth the candle, at least to the extent of Afghanistan. Going by past record of Pakistani generals (not to mention the caliber of person who rises to generalship and their atrophied powers of reasoning amply demonstrated in '48, '65, '71, '99,...) the biggest danger for Pakistan is if these same men follow the playbook of '89 when after Soviet withdrawal they felt on top of the world and thought they could recklessly apply similar Rambo-like methods to bring about similar "liberation" in places like Kashmir and later Central Asia (which had been a particular fetish of General Zia).
Posted by: slr | Jun 26, 2012 4:28:13 PM
Isn't Tellis an Indian? One of the architect of the the fabulous nuclear deal with India? His analysis may or may not be correct - the geopolitical permutations are many and many would suggest that the US has failed spectacularly - but this guy's worldview is compromised by his allegiances.
Posted by: Tanya | Jun 26, 2012 6:35:15 PM
And where, pray tell, Tanya, are you from? I ask just so that I can have some idea of your allegiances and (according to your own advice) ignore your opinions on everything having anything to do with your identity or origins.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jun 26, 2012 6:45:03 PM
Since I'm not making a public case, a case at a think tank that informs policy, my identity is kind of meaningless. No?
Posted by: Tanya | Jun 26, 2012 9:18:21 PM
Tellis may be Indian.....American, so his opinions about Pakistan could be suspect among the true believers. But what about Ahmed Rashid? Perhaps he is a RAW/Mossad/CIA agent?
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2012/03/22/pakistan-on-brink-future-of-america-pakistan-and-afghanistan/a26d
If there is one thing clear over the past 65 years, it is that Pakistan's military geniuses are in a class of their own. It is almost a given that Afghanistan will spectacularly blowback on them.
Posted by: Sam | Jun 27, 2012 2:25:19 AM
Yes, Tanya, I agree your background is unimportant to what you are saying. I was making the same point about Tellis, namely that we should engage his argument instead of speculating on his background and motives.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Jun 27, 2012 4:41:15 AM
We have some discussion about Ahmed Rashid's column on our blog http://www.brownpundits.com/?p=7179
may be of interest.
Incidentally, I said this right on this blog before Ashley Tellis did (and I am not Indian, unless you believe we are all civilizationally and genetically Indian..which is true, but not politically correct) http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2011/10/what-if-we-win.html
Posted by: omar | Jun 27, 2012 12:06:07 PM
"but this guy's worldview is compromised by his allegiances."
I didn't feel this deserved to be pounced on. I instinctively pretty much always bring to an article by anyone everything else I know about them. Instead, when reading someone I haven't read before, my priors are shifted by things like demographics, biography, venue of publication, who's recommending the read, etc. This emphatically isn't to say those considerations won't be overridden by more detailed, specific facts in the article or about the author. For that matter, even a disingenuously made argument stands or falls on its own merit.
Still, is no-one else here interested to learn that Ashley Tellis isn't a white American but rather an Indian Christian? Do we think that those groups are identical in terms of their attitudes to Pakistan? Or that people don't make strategic arguments? To me the identity of Tellis seems like a factoid, possibly a useful one, of the same information value as that the article is published by the "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" instead of Foreign Policy or Dawn or Playboy. Ignoring that info, or worse making a moralized case for ignoring it, just seems to me like needlessly leaving a potentially interesting fact on the table at the outset. I mean, it's not like Tellis is on trial for a crime or under consideration for a job. We're just reading an opinion article.
For the record, I've learned a lot from Omar's and similar articles and tend to be apprehensive about the situation of Pakistan. But I also won't pretend that my concern for the people (or for trouble leaking into India) isn't also in some part a cover for my reptilian brain feeling an only partially repressed sense satisfaction re just deserts or chickens coming to roost. It would be strange (I think) of people listening to me on the subject not to even let that possibility flit across.
Posted by: prasad | Jun 27, 2012 1:27:31 PM
When I saw the title of the article "Pakistan's impending defeat in Afghanistan", I said to myself, "Wow, the Soviets invade Afghanistan, the US invades Afghanistan and it is Pakistan that is getting defeated". The tone of this article as well as the authors other writings smearing Pakistan belies his professionalism rather than reveal his origins.
As for the term "strategic depth", it is in use and strategy long before Pakistan was created. It appeared in the context of Pakistan after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_depth
Whether it is strategic depth or Monroe doctrine or buffer states or proxies the idea is the same, to use one state against the other. Ashley Tellis works feverishly to ally US and India against China http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437429/posts
Prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was on the defensive with Afghanistan with regard to its borders and local separatist movements. It has been at US behest and threats that Pakistan' military intelligence is involved there. They don't fetch and sit fast enough when told to do so, that is the problem.
Posted by: Raza | Jun 27, 2012 2:15:46 PM
It is interesting to meet an Indian named "Ashley J. Tellis." Not that I don't know Indian Christians; I just haven't met an Ashley - man or woman. Ash does paint with an overly broad brush and some of the predictions come across as more wishful thinking than logically cast iron outcomes.
I agree partly with what Prasad (about the background of an opinion maker and commentator) and Raza (about defeat) said. But all said and done, no matter who the mischiefmakers in chief were to begin with, Pakistan has been left holding the bag, not exactly through coercion.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 27, 2012 5:37:04 PM
Hiya, Prasad. I'm just saying that the Tutsi analysis of the "Hutu Problem" would be very different from the Hutu analysis of the "Tutsi Problem." The problem with Ashley Tellis is that he partial and prejudiced. He forgets that India propped up Najibullah's disastrous regime. Since you seem so hopped up on the matter, you will remember Najibullah was found with testicles stuffed in his mouth.
Posted by: Tanya | Jun 27, 2012 6:25:28 PM
Tell you the truth, I find Tellis' analysis cute and transparent. We should all indulge in wishful thinking. We are all entitled to it. No?
Posted by: Tanya | Jun 27, 2012 6:31:04 PM
eh? I thought I was supporting you. no more girl, you're on your own!
Posted by: prasad | Jun 27, 2012 6:38:21 PM
Prassad: "Still, is no-one else here interested to learn that Ashley Tellis isn't a white American but rather an Indian Christian?"
Why should this thought come to the mind? Is biased writing left for white Americans and are Indian Christians somehow less patriotic? It should suffice to say the identity of an author is immaterial while his views can be debated.
Ruchira: "But all said and done, no matter who the mischiefmakers in chief were to begin with, Pakistan has been left holding the bag, not exactly through coercion"
I will also agree with you - partly. Pakistan's military, feudals, elites and judiciary are ultimately responsible for its baggage. But a "2am" call to bomb back to the stone age, or threatening to make horrible examples of its leaders or just the client relationship can be pretty coercive.
Posted by: Raza | Jun 27, 2012 6:50:06 PM
Tanya: Play cute with Prasad at your own peril;-)
As for nasty assertion (He forgets that India propped up Najibullah's disastrous regime. Since you seem so hopped up on the matter, you will remember Najibullah was found with testicles stuffed in his mouth.), if you are not yet nostalgic for Najibullah regardless of who propped him up, you are far more wishful and bloody minded than I first suspected. Omar, your turn!
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 27, 2012 6:59:13 PM
"your nasty assertion."
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 27, 2012 7:01:25 PM
"Why should this thought come to the mind? Is biased writing left for white Americans and are Indian Christians somehow less patriotic?"
Not at all, at least that wasn't where I was going. Actually, since I have nothing specifically about indian christians wrt pakistan, I basically assumed that variable'd make no difference wrt being pro or anti pak. It matters cuz when you hear the name ashley tiller, Indian doesn't leap to mind, as Ruchira says. if the person writing were called prasad, the possibility of indian-ness would occur naturally, and no-one would need to "reveal" it.
To spell my view out:
- All people are biased much of the time, some most of the time, but no-one is none of the time.
- Knowing who someone is gives you some input into what their biases might be, which is useful because people quite typically make effort to hide theirs.
- the biases of the average american and the average indian wrt pakistan are likely to be different. (Would you take seriously someone who assumed Indians and Americans think of Iran in the same way?)
Posted by: prasad | Jun 27, 2012 7:37:18 PM
Prasad: Agreed. I was just playing with your comment.
Posted by: Raza | Jun 27, 2012 8:06:24 PM
"Why should this thought come to the mind? Is biased writing left for white Americans and are Indian Christians somehow less patriotic?"
That thought does not come to mind, at least not to my mind. The little that I know about Indian Christians re: Pakistan and the Taliban, they are on average, exactly where the average Indian is - biased in favor of India. For me the revelation of Tiller's ethnicity was an eye opener. Had "Ashley" been a white American I would have seen his bias as pro-America. Now I see the article as partisan in a different way - pro-India.
As for the naming practices of Indian Christians, since independence and even before that, are not always religion specific. Many have first, last or both names that are indistinguishable from garden variety Hindu names. Many did not change their ancestral names after conversion and some did. Often the names are a mix of Indian and western names. Examples:
Vijay Amrithraj, Lara Dutta, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, Arundhati Roy. Mahesh Bhupathy's name could be Hindu. Leander Paes' is unmistakably Christian. My Punjabi and Bengali Christian friends have mostly non-western sounding names - both first and last. Keralite and Goan Christian names are generally quite distinct. "Ashley Tiller" is an unusual Indian Christian name. Easy to make a mistake without being prejudiced.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 27, 2012 8:18:17 PM
Raza, you are correct that we should not assume too much about anyone based on their names or ethnicity. As an American citizen with a very "un-American" name, I know that well. But as Prasad points out, we do sometimes make assumptions about a person's point of view based on their background and sometimes we are correct. Mr. Ashley Tiller does appear a bit biased - in favor of India. That may or may not have anything to do with his ethnicity.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 27, 2012 8:44:53 PM
Tanya, this time the testicle stuffers are coming after you too. Wait and see.
http://dawn.com/2012/06/27/taliban-release-video-of-beheaded-pakistani-soldiers/
and
http://www.brownpundits.com/?p=7203
btw, how were the next ten years after Najibullah's foul murder an improvement?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1600136.stm
Posted by: omar | Jun 28, 2012 12:34:38 AM
Cyril Almeida, and the greatest Pakistani journalist to this date, the late Antony Mascarenhas are/were Pakistani Christians. In other words, Hutus writing about Hutus; albeit of different religious persuation. Perhaps there should be a decree - like Ahmediyyas being declared non-Muslim - that only commentary about Pakistan from Punjabi Sunni Muslims can be taken seriously? The mindset that leads directly to the clusterfrick that is Pakistan today.
Incidentally, Najibullah's fate under the hands of the Mujahideen, is what Pakistan's whisky-swilling Majors and Generals can expect when the Taliban set their eyes eastwards. Some ten years ago COAS Gen. Musharraf personally rewarded the terrorist who brought him the severed head of an Indian soldier, which was then displayed in Pakistani mosques. Now it is Pakistani soldiers who are being barbarically beheaded and displayed by their own monstrous creation.
Posted by: Sam | Jun 28, 2012 12:38:04 PM
Omar, I was so caught up with the Supreme Court decison on Affordable Health Care all morning I did not see the the Dawn story you have linked to until now. What a gruesome event! I hope this stops very, very soon and people like Tanya would pause to consider how stupid and sickening their comments about stuffing body parts into corpses' mouths really are, regardless of where one's politics lie. These soldiers are cannon fodder or more like lambs to the slaughter - caught between misguided power hungry politicians and a blood thirsty band of savages. Very troubling and very frightening.
Posted by: Ruchira | Jun 28, 2012 4:35:32 PM
Ruchira, it wont stop any time soon. Thanks to our brilliant strategic thinkers, this genie is out of the bottle. Killing him off or putting him back in the bottle or converting him to Imran Khan style Scandinavian Islam will take many years yet.
And I dont think Uncle Sam will be the executor. I personally think the US, after throwing away (or directing into Dubai and Southern California bank accounts) countless taxpayer dollars and killing several thousand people (some deserving, many not) will leave. The final cleanup will be carried out by the Dari-speaking special forces our Chinese brothers are training in inner Mongolia.
Posted by: omar | Jun 29, 2012 8:48:56 AM
Post a comment