February
02, 2007
Compliance
& Defiance
Instead of trying
to find a cure for the core grievance
of Palestine, the United States, under
its 43rd President, George Bush, has
chosen to open up a two-front conflict
in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was supposed
to be easy, quick, and neat. Any resistance,
as it was envisaged by the war-planners,
was supposed to melt in the face of
overwhelming military might.
Thus, under this scenario, the US, in
the wake of the collapse of the USSR,
could consequently emerge as the sole
unassailable superpower whose writ would
continue to remain unchallenged.
This clearly has been a case of misdiagnosis.
Since the start of the 21st Century,
a new paradigm of conflict has been
operative.
Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya,
and Kashmir have demonstrated that high-tech
military might has been unable to subdue
daring and committed low-tech fighters.
This, in effect, is a point made by
British General Rupert Smith in his
new book, “The Utility of Force:
The Art of War in the Modern World”.
And it has also been borne out in ongoing
conflict situations where asymmetric
warfare has nullified superior technology
and revealed the futility of force.
But this point has not been absorbed
by military and political leaders who
are blinded by the arrogance of power.
Based upon the foregoing, Western strategists
were unable to make accurate judgments
about Iraq or Afghanistan. And, since
they did not foresee the consequences
of conflict, they have been unable to
manage its side-effects.
The march of military might was not
supposed to be blocked by seemingly
weaker and outgunned adversaries in
the post-9/11 world of the 21st Century.
Around Afghanistan, the route adopted
by neighboring Pakistan has been one
of compliance with Western
strategy in the region. Around Iraq,
the route adopted by neighboring Iran
has been one of defiance.
Paradoxically, both Pakistan and Iran
are being pressured for their compliance
and defiance, respectively.
Simply put, Pakistan is being scapegoated
for compliance and Iran is
being scapegoated for defiance. The
frustrations of not prevailing in Afghanistan
are impelling Western policymakers to
blame Pakistan. The constant mantra
is that Pakistan is not doing enough
and it needs to do more. This policy,
apart from being a diversionary tactic
to shift and deflect blame from the
US to Pakistan, is an attempt to put
Pakistan on the back-foot and hold it
responsible and accountable for Anglo-American
failures in Afghanistan.
On the Iraq front, amidst great fanfare,
President Bush had himself declared
victory and called it “mission
accomplished” on May 1, 2003.
Frustrated now, nearly four years later,
the Bush Administration is targeting
Iran for US difficulties in Iraq.
Then, too, the grand old Imperial strategy
of divide-and-rule with the exploitation
and highlighting of sectarian divisions
is in full display. According to Karachi-born
Congressman Chris Van Hollen of Maryland,
the strategy of sending additional troops
to Iraq is against the recommendations
of the Iraq Study Group, the advice
of US field commanders in Iraq, and
the will of the American people. According
to an ABC News poll, 71 percent of Americans
think that the US in on the wrong track.
Blaming Pakistan and Iran for the political
and humanitarian disaster in Afghanistan
and Iraq slides over the fact that the
villains of today in Afghanistan and
Iraq were darlings of yesterday in the
West where they were once lavishly feted
and funded.
Perhaps, the major share of the blame
rests in Washington.
