Analysis - Resignation of Afghan Intelligence Chief Rehmatullah Nabil

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Afghan intelligence chief, Rahmatullah Nabil, resigned on 10th December 2015. Differences with President Ashraf Ghani on his efforts to forge closer ties with Pakistan is described the reason for his resignation.

Prior to his resignation, he was staunch opponent of the idea of any kind of diplomatic ties of Kabul with Pakistan. He consistently blamed Pakistan for every law and order or security related incident in Afghanistan. His opposition to engagement with Pakistan is said to be the main cause behind Afghan government's decision to shelve a key intelligence sharing agreement between Pakistan's ISI and Afghan NDS. Both organizations signed a MoU for close cooperation in May earlier this year. It is being reported that Rehmatullah Nabil and many of his deputies in NDS were against any such arrangements.

Under the authority of Rehmatullah Nabil, NDS released the news of death of Mullah Omar just before the start of second phase of Afghan peace process between Kabul and Afghan Taliban earlier in July this year. This news not only derailed the talks but also created serious frictions within the Afghan Taliban. Combat commanders began to ask why such critical information was kept hidden from them and they began doubting the loyalty of their superiors with them and to the movement. Afghan Taliban divided to a considerable extent on the question of nominating new 'Ameer' (chieftain) as well. NDS presented these developments as major successes to President Ghani who then started to get cold footed about his own initiatives to engage with Pakistan on diplomatic level in order to find a political solution to the Afghan crisis. Afghan media began Pakistan bashing on the behest of NDS at the same time. Actually, it was believed that that charisma of Mullah Omar was the sole factor behind the cohesion of Taliban as resistance force and once the news of his demise will be made public, Taliban will wither away easily. Seriously, this proved to be a dangerous strategic miscalculation on the part of Afghan intelligence and political leadership.

Revelation of two years old death of Mullah Omar in Pakistan and it being kept from combat commanders created serious problem for senior Afghan Taliban leadership. In order to prove their cohesion as a well-organized resistance force, Taliban not only appointed a new Ameer quickly but also began what can easily be categorized as the most daring assaults and attacks on Afghan/NATO bases. They were able to capture the Kunduz city in October, earlier this year as well, from where they retreated later on as part of their war strategy. All of this was happening amid an extremely volatile security environment where ISIS/Daesh was also making its presence felt. Some Afghan Taliban joined the ISIS in Afghanistan. Majority of them were those who didn’t like the appointment of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor as new leader. TTP had already announced its allegiance to Daesh in Afghanistan and their sympathizers in Pakistan also began threatening the expansion of IS in Pakistan. This threat was not taken lightly in Pakistan and COAS Gen. Raheel Sharif had to issue statement with a commitment that Pakistan Army will not allow Daesh even to cast its shadow on Pakistan. This threat still persists.  

Afghan Taliban attacks on NATO/ANA bases continue to grow and NDS’s analysis was blown in their faces. Not only Taliban were able to keep its cohesion but it also become more secretive in its planning and communications and result was one assault after another. This string of attacks still continues. It has been reported that after these attacks, President Ashraf Ghani asked Rehmatullah Nabil to resign and made it clear that he will continue to pursue his earlier plans to engage Pakistan in order to find a political settlement with Taliban (though it will always remain a tough job for both Pakistan and Afghanistan to make Taliban compromise on some of their demands like complete withdrawal of foreign forces).

From the hindsight, resignation of Rehmatullah Nabil puts turbulent bilateral relations during the last year or so into a perspective which vindicates the assertion that NDS was not happy with President Ashraf Ghani's outreach to Pakistan, ISI and NDS mutual intelligence sharing agreement and peace process with Taliban and Pakistan’s role in it. But the ultimate question remains that who was gaining from this growing disaffection between Pakistan and Afghanistan on diplomatic and operational levels?

US and China were also backing the Afghan peace process so it is prudent to think that both these stakeholders were happy with the direction of developments in Afghanistan. In fact, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest called the meeting between Taliban and Kabul representatives in Pakistan “an important step toward advancing prospect for a credible peace.” As it has been said earlier, this breakage of dialogue only complicated the threat matrix for Pakistan. But, India was the only state where the breakage of Pakistan led Afghan peace process was taken as victory of Modi’s diplomacy to isolate Pakistan.  

Regardless to the fate of Afghan peace process, the agreement of mutual intelligence sharing between NDS and ISI is something which can pave the way forward for a durable peace in Afghanistan, FATA and to keep Indian intervention in Pakistan through Afghanistan in check. Resignation of Rehmatullah has already begun proving this true.

“Killing of a key TTP commander, Saeed Daur alias Aryana, in a gun battle with Afghan special task force at Pak-Afghan border the day the Afghan president agreed to renew the efforts to jointly counter terrorism, can be called the first informal sign from Kabul to hunt down Pakistan’s wanted terror targets,” wrote The Nation’s columnist Jawad R Awan while quoting the security services sources.

It was also reported that Duar who was killed in Paktia province of Afghanistan, was a close confidant of former TTP chief Hakimullah Mehsud. He managed to cross over to Afghanistan when the operation Zarb-e-Azb reached Mir Ali tehsil of North Waziristan. 

Such developments can ensure a lasting working relationship between ISI and NDS despite all the political impedances during the coming weeks and months. This partnership is crucial for regional stability as through this professional arrangement the secret services of both the nations would understand each other better and would also able to devise common strategies to secure the respective sides of Pak-Afghan border. Previously, Pakistani intelligence and Army was used to be viewed through Indian lens which caused serious trust deficit between the two neighbors.

   

Pakistan and US Agree on Eearly Resumption of Afghan Peace Process

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and the United States have agreed to work together for an early resumption of the stalled Afghan reconciliation process.

Both countries reached to this understand during the COAS Gen Raheel Sharif's recent visit to the US where he held extensive discussions with key figures of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.

“There is a sort of agreement that there is a need to move on the Afghan reconciliation thing very quickly depending on the conditions,” a senior diplomatic source, who had been briefed on the trip, told Dawn in a background briefing on Saturday.

Pakistan believes that there can be no peace as long as Afghanistan remains volatile that's why Afghanistan was the main focus of Gen Sharif’s visit, during which other issues related to Pakistan national security an regional stability like Pakistan’s strained ties with India, military cooperation, strategic (nuclear) issues and other regional matters were discussed.

According to the sources privy to meetings between COAS Gen Raheel and American interlocutors Pakistani military leadership quite candidly conveyed its political and strategic perspectives on various issues related to Afghanistan to concerned quarters in the US.  

Gen Sharif is believed to have communicated Pakistan’s fears in accepting the facilitation role that it is expected to play for reviving the process. The Pakistani side is primarily concerned about the Afghan security establishment thwarting a renewed process.

Military spokesman Lt Gen Asim Bajwa, too, had in one of his tweets on the army chief’s visit said that “requirement of conducive environment for re-initiating Afghan peace process” was emphasised.

Pakistan is very clear about the issue and is certain that there are elements within Afghanistan government and NDS who don't want to let the reconciliation process start. These elements want to protect their political interests by denying any political role of Taliban which they may get as result of an agreement with Kabul.

In this regard, at least three major initiatives – the first attempt in February to kick-start the reconciliation process, the ISI-NDS (the Afghan intelligence agency) cooperation agreement in May, and the reconciliation process itself –, Pakistanis believe, failed because of conspiracies hatched by these elements within Afghanistan establishment.

There was no time frame of this process was set though.“It would have been imprudent to set the timeframe without getting the Afghan government and China on board,” the source explained.

It is also expected that a “lot of ground would be covered during the Heart of Asia Conference”, which Pakistan is co-hosting with Afghanistan on Dec 7-8. It is being speculated that President Ashraf Ghani would visit Islamabad on this occasion.

Chinese Special Envoy on Afghanistan Ambassador Deng Xijun, who visited Pakistan last week, too had offered to facilitate the Afghan dialogue, provided other stakeholders agreed to the proposal.

A concerted diplomatic push for resumption of reconciliation process is clearly afoot.

An early resumption of peace process in Afghanistan is in interest of both Pakistan and the US. Pakistan cannot consolidate on the gains of Operation Zarb e Azb without brokering a peace deal between Afghan factions. On the other hand, President Obama wants to bring Afghan war to a logical conclusion so that it does not eclipses his legacy as President.

Indian factor is also important in Pak US overtures in Afghanistan. India sees any peace reconciliation process in Afghanistan as a negative development for its own interests in Afghanistan. After the renewed resolve to kick start Afghan reconciliation process, it is believed in Islamabad that Indians may quietly be told to let US, Pakistan work out Afghan peace policy. If it is true, then not it is obvious to hope that not only US would push Afghan government to produce a conducive environment for reconciliation but Pak-US bilateral relations would also come out of shadows of mistrust regarding former's role in global WoT.

Finally! An Official Response from Pakistan on Mullah Omar

News Desk

Finally! Pakistani government recovered from deep slumber when Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, while addressing the National Assembly on Friday, denied the reports and claims of Afghan government that Taliban leader and founder Mullah Omar died inside Pakistan. "He didn't died here and is not buried in Pakistan", said Defense Minister. 

He rejected the claims that the Afghan Taliban leader was in Quetta or in Karachi. He also made it clear that Pakistan has no interest in being part of ongoing leadership crisis within Afghan Taliban.Pakistan just wants peace in the region and is playing its role as a facilitator in negotiations between the Afghan Taliban and the Afghan government, he added. 

He also clarified that Mullah Omar was never treated in any hospital in Karachi. Asif said that statements made by Mullah Omar's family prove that he died in Afghanistan and was buried there as well.

He was of the view that an atmosphere of peace can only be established in the region after ensuring peace in Afghanistan.

Last month, It was announced by Afghan intelligence and government that Mullah Omar, the reclusive leader of the Afghan Taliban movement, died more than two years ago in Karachi. Pakistani rebuttal of official Afghan narrative came after 9 days when it was first confirmed by Kabul that Mullah Omar died in 2013 in a Pakistani hospital in Karachi.

“The government ... based on credible information, confirms that Mullah Mohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban died in April 2013 in Pakistan,” the Afghan presidential palace had said in a statement.

Later, the Afghan Taliban confirmed the death of their leader Mullah Omar but did not say when or where he died. The statement though rejected claims of his demise on Pakistani soil. The statement said “his [Mullah Omar's] health condition deteriorated in the last two weeks” and “not for a single day did he go to Pakistan”.

Omar's death marks a significant blow to the Taliban, which is riven by internal divisions and threatened by the rise of the self-styled Islamic State group, the Middle East terrorist outfit that is trying to establish footprint in Afghanistan. So far, it is limited only in Nangarhar province. The most immediate impact of Mullah Omar's death was postponement of second round of peace talks between Taliban and Kabul regime of Ashraf Ghani.   

The delay in Pakistani response provided certain hostile actors in the region with an opportunity to malign Pakistan for hiding Mullah Omar during the last 14 years of Global War on Terror (GWoT) just like Osama Bin Laden. Indian media was particularly vocal in this regard and so was former NDS chief Amarullah Saleh. Ruling PMLN government remained bogged down by domestic political issues while Pakistan had to bear the brunt of a well orchestrated media campaign of disinformation targeted at highlighting Pakistan as terror harboring state. This was not the first time when Pakistani government's ineptness was exposed by such development. In 2011, when Osama Bin Laden was killed by US SEAL team in Abbottabad, the absence of any official narrative provided explosive to hostile media and diplomatic entities to portray Pakistan as global terror hub. Evidently, no lesson was learnt from that humiliation!

Afghanistan: Choosing Between War and Peace

by Shahzad Masood Roomi

Finally, Afghan peace process has  initiated after vigorous diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and China. First meeting between the representatives of Afghan government and Taliban held in hill town resort in Muree on Tuesday. According to the statement issued by Pakistani foreign office, both sides have agreed to continue the talks after fasting month of Ramadan. But as the peace talks took start in Pakistan, voices advocating the continuation of military discourse have also begun to emerge.

Former US military commander in Afghanistan,  David Petraeus has put forward a case of keeping the US forces on ground in Afghanistan on permanent bases just like Japan and Germany. His article which can be accessed here proposes the idea of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan  as the only viable option to ensure the safety of Afghanistan and world at large. He concluded his assessment in the following words;

"Yes, such an operation would have real American costs — perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion a year in U.S. military expenses, on top of $2 billion to $3 billion to help sustain Afghan forces at roughly current size, and undoubtedly some U.S. casualties. But compared with the investment to date, of well over 2,000 American lives and nearly $1 trillion in expense, and compared with the specter of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland devised or launched out of a South Asian terrorist sanctuary, such costs are bearable — and the right call for this nation."

A number of caveats challenge this assessment of former US military general and it would be prudent to analyze the fluid Afghan political landscape in order to asses if this approach would bring any stability in war torn country and the region as has been claimed by Gen Petraeus.

ANALYSIS:

1. War itself is just politics by other means. So, one way or other, it is always a political conflict which becomes a peg to a military conflict. But so far, the US strategic community is not ready to accept this reality. There is a clear strategic division on this among US policy and opinion makers.

2.  Historically, Afghanistan has remained a complex political entity with its own internal ethnic and tribal strife. But ironically, this seemingly divided nation has demonstrated a remarkable cohesion against the external invaders. This unique paradoxical national behavior has stunned all the invaders.

3.  Lately, there has been a realization within the US policymakers that a never ending war in Afghanistan is futile not only for US/NATO forces but US political strategy home and abroad. There is no longer any clear military objective for US/NATO forces in Afghanistan after ending their combat missions last year. After utter failure in the Middle East, the US foreign policy cannot afford the baggage of yet another strategic failure of a prolonged war. The US government wants to end the war so that a political victory can be declared.

Lately, it has also been admitted in principle by the US policymakers that destroying the Afghan Taliban completely may not be possible as Afghan Taliban are as much a political entity as the are a military one. This explains why US supporting the Pak/China led peace initiative.

4. Pakistan has learnt its lesson hard way and eventually has realized the fact that it is time Islamabad let Afghans settle their issues by themselves. Peace initiative by Islamabad and Beijing has just broken the ice but how things will proceed from this point on wards wholesomely depend on Taliban and Afghan government. Due to the policy option Pakistan chose after 9/11, the role of ISI has reduced considerably in Afghan Taliban's decision making. Now, ISI is acting a sole facilitator in this entire peace process. Good news is that for the first time in last 14 years, Afghan Taliban are in talking to Kabul government. Though right now both camps have adopted maximalist  positions and reconciliation seems distinct possibility, yet both the camps have agreed to continue the negotiations after first round.

5. Americans, along with Chinese, are also part of this peace and reconciliation process as observer. This means this peace process is NOT moving forward without the US being on board. All the stakeholders are looking for a break through.

6. The demand of David Petraeus has no political backing after the US has withdrawn majority of the US forces in Afghanistan and Obama wants to bring all the US forces home before end of his run as President in 2016.

7. Permanent bases in Afghanistan would only deter the idea of peace initiative and putting the war to an end to declare a political victory. Logically any permanent military base would become a target of insurgents and Taliban perpetuating the conflict which would defeat the purpose of peace talks apart from destabilizing the region particularly Afghanistan itself.

8. Latest attacks on Kabul indicate that the US forces have actually failed to meet their primary goal of destroying Taliban during the last 14 years and that was the situation with 130,000 US troops on ground whereas now this number has gone down to 12,000. With this strength, the US forces would be stretched extremely thin in various parts of the country, particularly in North, where Taliban have gotten a strong military footprint. Attacks on Kabul would continue as well.

9. Permanents bases in Afghanistan may deny Taliban's return in Kabul but their presence would keep preventing any Afghan government to work. Ashraf Ghani knows this very well and this explains why he agreed to Pak/China led peace initiative to succeed. Taliban's onslaught can be deter through political discourse as well and after 14 years of war, this is what the US, Afghan government and ISI have realized.

10. If the objective of this proposal is to save the human and financial investment which the US has made in order to weaken the Al-Qaeda political discourse is a more promising discourse and it is high time and all the stakeholders give it a chance.

11. But, still there is no guarantee that these talks would bear any fruit as Taliban are divided on the issue of talks and there are number of actors who do not see a political settlement in Afghanistan a good omen for their objectives. Afghan government factions consisting on former Northern Alliance are also not happy with the prospect of a political share of Afghan Taliban which might be given to them if talks succeed. Private military contractors and the US MIC would also advocate continuation of military solution in Afghanistan.

Conclusion:

This is obvious that in every possible scenario involving permanent military bases of the US on Afghan soil would only contribute to perpetuate the conflict which, in the long run, would not serve anyone's interests. So opting for a negotiated solution of this prolonged duel remains only feasible discourse for all the stakeholders involved in this conflict. 

Afghanistan: A Never Ending War!

Latest news suggest that almost 2300 US troops from three different units would be deployed to Afghanistan as part of regular rotation of the US forces in Afghanistan. The deployment would be for Spring and Summer seasons ahead.

The US has plans to cut the size of her forces in Afghanistan to half of current strength of 10,000 but the top US commander in the field, Gen. John Campbell, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month that he wants "greater flexibility" to potentially keep more troops in-country. After his testimony, the US announced to rethinking about force withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Actually, under current geopolitical scenario, the US cannot disengage from Afghanistan. Resurgence of a defiant Russia, Chinese overtures in Afghanistan and renewed efforts of Pakistan to bring Afghanistan Taliban on the negotiation table have made this decision a delicate proposition for the US.
There are about 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan; about 8,500 of them are soldiers. This strength would not able to control the Afghan Taliban particularly in the countryside. Perhaps, right now the US strategy is to deny Taliban from capturing any noticeable town or city. 
It is uncertain if the war in Afghanistan would come to an end anytime soon. For now, it just remains a never ending conflict!

Afghanistan: America's Never Ending War!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

US president Obama announced on Friday, that the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan would be extended for another year and now much talked pullback would begin in as early as December 2015 provided this extension of US war pay some dividend within one year which seems highly unlikely. Under this new order now the US troops can conduct military operations without seeking approval from Kabul.

Question is, what actually compelled President Obama to expand the US troops combat role in Afghanistan when almost everyone was expecting a draw-down of major portion of US troops from Afghanistan? According to New York Time's report, the decision has been made as combat situation is not what the US had hoped for when cut off date of December 2014 was announced in May, earlier this year by President Obama.

"Mr. Obama’s order allows American forces to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.", reads NYT report.

It is common knowledge that Post 9/11 legislation done in Washington has empowered the private military contractors, manufacturers in the power corridors. For any US government, it would be almost impossible to disengage from military conflicts around the globe. This recent decision by President Obama would also benefit Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Pentagon irrespective to its aftermath. This decision is being considered similar to the one President Obama had to make in 2009 to send 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan under the pressure of Pentagon. Last 5 years' progress in WoT shows that the surge of US troops in Afghanistan failed to achieve its stated goals of degrading, dismantling and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban. "We are going to dismantle and degrade their capabilities and ultimately dismantle and destroy their networks. It is my intention to finish the job." said President Obama in 2009 while announcing the surge in 2009. These bitter realities have played a key role in this latest decision by the White House despite the fact that the US economy has been rattled due to this prolonged Afghan/Iraq wars.

But the problem, for the Obama, is that after 5 years of surge, it is evident that the Obama's Af-Pak strategy failed both on the battlefield and on the negotiation table while, back in the US,  Democrats are going in general elections within the next two years, without attaining half of the goals they set for themselves in 2009 Af-Pak review. The results of mid term elections, recently held in various US States, also point towards the waning public support for this prolonged war. So, understandably, Democrats are desperate for a clear and decisive victory. But can extension of combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan achieve this?  In this backdrop, this new decision by President Obama demands some pondering on its after effects on the regional geopolitical landscape.

Cost of War:

How this decision would change the general complexion of WoT within one year? Would there be another extension to the combat role of the US troops in Afghanistan next year? These questions are critical as they are related to the military and financial rationale of prolonging this war. Back in 2009, it was estimated that the surge would cost $30 billion annually on additional 30,000 troops sent to Afghanistan. This cost was in addition to the cost of keeping earlier 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan sent in 2001 after 9/11. The studies conducted recently on cost of this war indicates that the cost would be in between 4 and 6 trillion dollars. This is a very high cost indeed even for a economy as big as America's.

South Asian geopolitics and US strategic interests:

With a strategic shift in power from the West to East, the geopolitical landscape in South Asia is also transforming rapidly. Emergence of China and Resurgence of Russia has affected the geopolitics in this region more than any other part of the world. South Asia is significant for global politics as majority of world population is inhabited here. Apart from China and Russia, India is also positioning itself to become a big and effective player in the region. In the Indian strategy of extending her influence in the region, military power projection and employment of "soft-power" are two most visible means.

The biggest historical dilemma with strategic power shift phenomenon from one region to another is that it is a slow, rare and infrequent and often a process full of conflicts and confrontations of various sorts. Historically, such power shifts always invited conflicts and recent strategic stand-off between China and the US in the Pacific rim of Indian Ocean around Japan, clearly indicates that this strategic flux of global economic and political power can get ugly very quickly. Both, rising and the existing powers (China and the US), have been locked in eyeball to eyeball situation and no one wants to blink. Despite the massive budget cuts and financial constrains, the US is compelled to maintain its current level of defense spending and even an increase in defense expenditure has been forced as the technological edge between the US and China is eroding fast. This explains the announcement of  Defense Innovation Initiative by the US Defense Secretary, Chuk Hegal, ealier this month. Under this initiative the US government would provide more funds for defense R&D (Research and Development). Main aim of this program is to develop new, smart weapons and various combat systems.

Afghanistan is strategically important. Not only for the US but more so for recently announced, "New Silk Route" strategy of China which aims for Asian economic integration. Chinese silk route goes around Afghanistan through Central Asia and Pakistan. This strategic infrastructure build up is a strategic Chinese attempt to secure her vulnerable energy supply lines and open up new markets for Chinese made products in Middle East, Europe and Central Asia by providing a cheap and efficient land-based transportation system. So, Chinese strategy for sustained oil supplies and Chinese export will not only expand her political influence in the region but would also contribute in Chinese military modernization. Chinese infrastructure developments in neighboring countries is going to get challenge US strategic interests in the region. This is why  energy experts like John Foster of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives believe that the real reasons for Western military involvement may be largely hidden. "Rivalry for pipeline routes and energy resources reflects competition for power and control in the region.", stated Foster in one of his analysis on Why Afghanistan is strategically so important. Afghanistan lies in center of major energy and trade corridors in the region. It is going to be the root of TAPI gas pipeline (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India).        

Due to these Chinese overtures in the region, the Americans are compelled to maintain a strategic footprint in Afghanistan, directly or through a proxy like India, Recently, Indian interest in Afghanistan and the Indo-US strategic partnership in Afghanistan became vivid trends in South Asian geopolitics. Not only the US praises Indian role in Afghanistan but wants to expand this Indian foot print as well. This US desire was recently expressed by none other than Rear Admiral John Kirby, Pentagon Press Secretary. “I will leave it to India to decide and to speak to what they will contribute to regional security after the end of this year, but we certainly look to India’s leadership and their continued participation.”

Implications for Regional Stability:

US reliance on India as a strategic partner in Afghanistan to safeguard converging Indo-US strategic interests in the region has become a serious concern for Islamabad during the recent years. Pakistan Army Chief has already declared India a hurdle in ongoing War on Terror in FATA region bordering restive Afghanistan. And days after that, Pakistani Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif declared the US as 'unreliable' partner. Pakistani resentment stems from the fact that despite accepting the fact that India has been creating problems for Pakistan from Afghanistan, Post 9/11 US foreign policy has largely favored India in Afghanistan at the cost of Pakistan's security interests in Afghanistan.   

This decision is also critical for Pakistan's internal security which has been compromised by the violent elements/terrorists of TTP/Al-Qaeda hiding inside Afghanistan. Pakistan Army has been demanding a stiff action against these elements by Afghan government since many months but Kabul didn't accept Pakistani demands in this regard. A prolonged combat in Afghanistan would compound the already volatile security on open-boarder between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is something Pakistan does not want but if the US withdraw from Afghanistan too early, that would be more catastrophic. Furthermore, -despite prevailing hostile local sentiments -the US forces in Afghanistan are part of UN approved international campaign against Taliban.

For Pakistani perspective, there is no military solution of Afghanistan and with her current military oriented strategic mindset the US would not be able to pull troops back.  It is imperative that the US forces must continue their support against insurgency but it is responsibility of Afghan government to seek a broad based political solution of the problem. For now, Pakistan would continue to face security threats from Western front and combat in FATA region would also continue to bleed Pakistan Army and State as well. For Pakistan it is critical to take initiative and unite all noticeable factions in a political process and Afghan stability must be the top strategic priority in Pak-US relations and strategic dialog as well. Even for the US, this is the only way out if Obama really want to disengage from America's never ending war!

(END)

Afghan Power Sharing Deal: Would it work?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

A power sharing deal between rival Afghan presidential candidates finally reached after months of tension. Timing of this deal is indeed intriguing as coalition prepares to withdraw. But an even more intriguing aspect of this entire political drama is the secrecy about how this deal was reached and under what conditions. It is worth remembering that earlier both sides had accused each other of fraud during the political standoff. But now suddenly, aides from both sides have confirmed the signing of the deal. 

The "Kings" and Kingmaker!

Irrespective of the fact, how and under what conditions this deal was reached. The real question every political analyst must ask is, Will it work? and if yes then how long this deal would last? Unfortunately, the content of the deal made available in public domain and the political history of Afghanistan both indicate that this deal would be nothing more than a temporary arrangement to bring some kind of political stability so that US can sell this to masses back home as their success in this protracted war before they leave the country by the end of this year.

The twitchy history of political harmony further endorses this assessment. In 1993, when Afghanistan was plunged in a bloody civil war, a similar power sharing deal was signed. It was called Islamabad Accord. In that accord, power was shared between more than 10 varying factions including Mohammad Yunus Khalis' breakaway faction of the Hezb-i-Islami, which has boycotted all past agreements. Afghanistan's minority Shi`ites, allies of Hekmatyar who have been demanding greater representation, were given the finance and health ministries. Major protagonists in that political episode were Tajik Ahmed Shah Masood and Pushtun Hekmatyar. 
 
Earlier that year, a peace deal was reached when after a year of shelling Hekmatyar's forces captured Defense Minister Masood's ministry building in Kabul. Hekmatyar is designated prime minister and a cease-fire is to be imposed. This peace deal, though, fulfilled the political ambitions of Hekmatyar to become Afghan Prime Minister but it never brought any peace in Afghanistan. The peace deal was brokered by foreign states (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran) and was not a native solution reached by varying Afghan factions themselves. Removal of Ahmed Shah Masood from defense ministry also didn’t help. The deal was ended just after two days when, as per archives of Library of Congress, Hekmatyar's allies of Hezb-e Wahdat again began rocketing areas in Kabul. Both the Wahhabi Pashtun Ittehad-i Islami of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf backed by Saudi Arabia and the Shia Hazara Hezb-e Wahdat supported by Iran remained involved in heavy fighting against each other. The envisioned peace could never be achieved as the peace accord miserably failed to address the far deeper fault lines of tribal society like ethnic, linguistic, tribal rifts.

But the failure of 1993 Afghan peace accord is not without precedent. A more recent example of similar political failure can be seen in Iraq, where the US invasion created an environment of frenzied sectarian strife fueled by both Saudi Arabia and Iran. And these history of failed peace making adopting non-inclusive approaches and ignoring the social realities are the reason behind the caveats for this recent power share deal signed between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani. Evidently, the country is heading towards a similar political log jam witnessed in 1990s.

Apart from its inability to address these existing ethnic, sectarian and tribal fault lines this new deal have its intrinsic vulnerabilities as well. The provision of creating a new administrative position called Chief Executive Officer (CEO), which will be held by Abdullah Abdullah or one of his nominee, is going to create serious constitutional crisis in Afghanistan as it is certainly not clear at this point in time that how administrative powers would be balanced between these two power centers.  With this political delicacy, new Afghan government would also have to face the threats from Taliban insurgency. These concerns are being raised from within Afghan intelligentsia as well. "There will be two powers in the government, and it will be very difficult for them to work together," said Sediq Mansoor Ansari, an analyst and director of the Civil Societies Federation to AFP.

Furthermore, this power sharing deal would put a big question mark on Afghan democracy. People would have no idea about what happened to their votes. In short term, this may not seems to be an issue at all but it would cause dearly to Afghan state’s cohesion in coming months. 

Despite years of fighting Taliban remain defiant

It remains an unfortunate aspect of Afghan history that the country has been in perpetual state of war since last 40 years and there is no end in sight even now. A fragile country, with so many social fault lines, would remain vulnerable to political edginess if foreign players keep meddling into Afghan political affairs particularly Iran, India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. US desperation for a political settlement is quite fathomable. As far as the American role in making both parties to reach this deal is concerned, by the initial American reaction it would be prudent to think that this deal has blessings from Washington. Americans wants to sign BSA (Bilateral Security Agreement) before draw down of the US/NATO forces completes by end of this year. This agreement, if signed, would enable the US military to stay in Afghanistan for minimum 10 years. Americans still believe that they can eliminate offcuts of Afghan resistance. Keeping the Afghan security profile of last 13 years, it would be prudent to assume that this idea wouldn’t work either. But it certainly would put the Americans into a position to protect the Afghan government. For now, the future of this power sharing deals hangs with just a reedy fiber of hope and optimism.