Originally posted by S-2
View Post
Unlike Iraq, the morality of this attack was never questioned by any country. It was justified.
The US was not incapable of reversing the conditions in Afghanistan. It is just that it was diverted by Iraq and thereby it violated the first Principles of War – Selection and Maintenance of Aim.
On sanctuary and sustaining guerilla warfare. this is telling:
Foreign support in the form of soldiers, weapons, sanctuary, or statements of sympathy for the guerrillas is not strictly necessary, but it can greatly increase the chances of an insurgent victory.[12] Foreign diplomatic support may bring the guerrilla cause to international attention, putting pressure on local opponents to make concessions, or garnering sympathetic support and material assistance. Foreign sanctuaries can add heavily to guerrilla chances, furnishing weapons, supplies, materials and training bases. Such shelter can benefit from international law, particularly if the sponsoring government is successful in concealing its support and in claiming "plausible denial" for attacks by operatives based in its territory.
The VC and NVA made extensive use of such international sanctuaries during their conflict, and the complex of trails, way-stations and bases snaking through Laos and Cambodia, the famous Ho Chi Minh Trail, was the logistical lifeline that sustained their forces in the South. Also, the United States funded a revolution in Colombia in order to take the territory they needed to build the Panama Canal. In the post-Vietnam era, the Al Qaeda organization also made effective use of remote territories, such as Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, to plan and execute its operations.
Therefore, the issues of foreign support and sanctuaries are paramount for sustenance.
The AQ and the Taliban gets it support and sanctuary in Pakistan as is well known.
The importance of foreign assistance and more importantly, sanctuaries to wage a guerilla war is well expounded by the master, Mao Tse Tung.
If the womb is removed, then procreation is not feasible. Terrorism, thus, can be controlled if the womb is removed, in other words, the sanctuaries are removed as also the organisations and agencies that foster it.
Militarily, such an action is not a problem. The problem is the political will – and that is not so easy a decision.
Pakistan gives sanctuary and support to the Taliban. They do so for acquiring ‘strategic depth’. That contention is patently bogus since ‘strategic depth’ refers, broadly speaking, to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centres of population or military production. Afghanistan is a foreign country and so, the contention of Pakistan that Afghanistan is Pakistan’s ‘strategic depth’ is ludicrous.
Pakistan is a complex country. It is not a standard country as one would like to believe. It is wracked by contradictions and with many power centres. Which is supreme? The ISI and the Army. Musharraf’s book In the Line of Fire clearly indicates the power over Pakistan politics of the ISI and the Army.
Therefore, it is seen often that the US interlocutors confer with the Army and then with the so called democratic govt. And both Pakistan ‘pillar’ work at cross purposes! So, the US naturally is in a quandary.
The Pakistani governance cannot go against the Muslim fundamentalists since they have gripped Pakistani politics and events by the golis. Upset them and there will be civil war!
Therefore, while Afghanistan could have been addressed, the Iraq War, the contradictions called Pakistan and the possibility of civil war impedes a solution to Afghanistan.
Comment