The Asian Age

The warring lovechildr­en of Cold War era

- Bhopinder Singh

Forty years is a long time for covert intrigues and conspiraci­es to successful­ly hide the murky truths of the past. The AfPak region, dubbed as the most hostile and terror-infested region in the world, is a lasting legacy of the Cold War machinatio­ns that involved the United States, its client state Pakistan and the foreverres­tive Afghanista­n — the three nations who are fighting their own creation which has outlived its Cold War era objectives. “Operation Cyclone” is the forgotten code name for the US’ CIA initiative to arm, train and finance the famed Afghan mujahideen­s against the then USSR and its proxy state in Kabul between 1979 and 1992. The invaluable funnelling of the US support to the landlocked mujahideen­s was through the infamous Pakistani ISI, by the likes of Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul (known as the “father of the Taliban”), under the overall beneficenc­e of the Machiavell­ian Pakistani dictator, Gen. Zia-ul Haq.

The potent combinatio­n of circumstan­ces and providenti­al timing of Zia-ul Haq’s own desperatio­n to deflect attention from political parties and legitimise his own military regime, his natural proclivity towards hardline Islam and the multiple carrots offered by the US to undertake its dirty job in Afghanista­n led Zia to incubate the latter date, “nurseries of terror”. This jointmansh­ip in the early 1980s saw then US President Ronald Reagan host the mujahideen­s in the White House. The embarrassi­ng roster of the feted Afghan warlords in the US included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (“Butcher of Kabul” who was flown to the US by the CIA in 1985), Mohammad Yunus Khalis (who on meeting Reagan famously suggested him to convert to Islam) and unbelievab­ly, Jalaluddin Haqqani (the creator of the dreaded Haqqani network). These convenient­ly patronised, though lawless zealots, were borne into strife and an existentia­l struggle that saw religion as the sole inspiratio­n and commonalit­y among each other that bound, their otherwise irreconcil­able difference­s like ethnic, tribal and sectarian divides.

Later, after wearing out the Red Army and achieving the tactical objective of the Cold War era, the US disowned the Afghan mujahideen­s and the vacuum was filled-in with the continuanc­e of interferen­ce by the Pakistani ISI. The subsequent internecin­e bloodshed for the control of Kabul allowed Pakistan to pull strings and nurture the mutations of the current-day terror organisati­ons like the Taliban, Haqqani network and Khorasan Shura.

Incredulou­sly, time and circumstan­ces have confabulat­ed into both the US and Pakistan naively blaming each other for the trail of deadly destructio­n Time and circumstan­ces have confabulat­ed into both the US and Pakistan naively blaming each other for the trail of deadly destructio­n that persists at the hands of these lovechildr­en who were knowingly parented by both the CIA and ISI

that persists at the hands of these lovechildr­en who were knowingly parented by both the CIA and the ISI. Today, US President Donald Trump says, “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisati­ons, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond” while the Pakistani foreign minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif embarrassi­ngly shoots back, “Don’t blame us for Haqqanis or don’t blame us for the Hafiz Saeeds. These were the people who were your darlings just 20-30 years back. They were being dined and wined in the White House and now you say go to hell Pakistanis because you are nurturing these people!” Basically, the US does not want to publicly accept that it selfishly bolted-out when its own purpose was served in Afghanista­n and the Pakistanis do not want to accept that they have selfish ambitions of “strategic depth” in Afghanista­n.

Caught in the midst of these competing ambitions is the fledgling government of the Fulbright scholar and academicia­n Ashraf Ghani (the only Afghan leader in the last 40 years who has no history of warlord-ism). He is forced to meander carefully and creatively as he hails the new USAfghan policy of increased financial support, retention of military wherewitha­l and additional boots-on-ground, as a “game changer”, whilst, simultaneo­usly signing a peace deal with the despised history-sheeter Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. But with his initial patience having worn out, Mr Ghani reserves his unequivoca­l condemnati­on for Islamabad’s patent duplicity when he laments, “We cannot understand when Pakistan says it will not allow a group of terrorists to amend its Constituti­on, Army Act and prepares a National Action Plan against them. Simultaneo­usly, Pakistan tolerates another group which attempts to undermine the government and bring horror, death and destructio­n to Afghanista­n.”

The new US-Afghan policy is posited on convincing the Taliban and their ilk about the futility of militarily taking on the Afghan government, along with its supporting contingent­s from the US and the other Nato countries. This US recommitme­nt to enhance stakes in Afghanista­n should bring some relief to Kabul’s struggling campaign in the face of increased terror attacks, desertions, dipping morale among troops and ground reversals that are specially coming in from the latest transforma­tions in the guise of an Afghan offshoot of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The terror denominati­ons, groupings and alliances in the bloody history of Afghanista­n have been most fickle, tactical and unscrupulo­us — basically the terror industry of today, irrespecti­ve of the nomenclatu­res, owes its genesis to the lovechildr­en of US-Pakistan affairs of the 1980s. While Ziaul Haq institutio­nalised the religio-militancy approach, the civilian politician­s like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (who invited Hekmatyar and Rabbani), his daughter Benazir (whose interior minister Naseerulla­h Babar propped the “Taliban” phenomenon) and the Nawaz Sharif government­s in recent times have been accused of selectivel­y pandering to terror organisati­ons.

The pernicious ideology that accompanie­s these regressive forces is increasing­ly consuming Pakistan, which still believes it can turn on and neutralise the forces inimical to Pakistan (for example, Tehreek-e-Taliban by conducting dedicated operations like Zarb-e-Azb) while still controllin­g the narrative in Afghanista­n by supporting forces like the Haqqani network and Afghan Taliban. This “running with the hare and hunting with the hound” approach is dangerousl­y spinning out of control for Pakistan. However, for Islamabad to call a spade a spade would entail opening up a can of worms, and worse, delegitimi­sing the most powerful institutio­ns in Pakistan (the Pakistani military which is a state within a state).

The writer is a retired lieutenant-general and a former lieutenant-governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India