Have you seen, in real life or in a film a fight between two bulls standing head to head, straining to push each other out of the field in the opposite direction? Did you notice how the end came? Well you may have noticed that the bull to first loose his rear-feet grip on the earth starts retreating and once the first few inches of retreat are ceded, a total, unstoppable rout results.
In human situations, it is the "thought" of retreat, which is the equivalent of the first few inches of retreat by the weaker bull. In humans, the weakness can be physical or a manifestation of loss of courage, conviction and resolve. The US has been having such thoughts in Afghanistan - at least mulling over them - ever since Bush packed up and the Obama era, with the first ever African-American President, was ushered in. Why else would President Obama have talked of the need for an "exit strategy," right after assuming office a year ago?
This is not to suggest that the US is the weaker party. With a 3 million strong army (including reserves) and a horrendous nuclear arsenal (which continues to grow) and a delivery system with global reach, it could, in theory, use its lethal cargo to wipe out life from the face of the earth. Its weakness lies in the fact that its frequent political blunders keep landing it into one super-sized problem after another across the globe.
For several months past as gloom deepened in the American camp and hope receded in the US about the possibility of a grand, triumphant exit from the quagmire that Afghanistan has become for the Americans, and as the refrain "we are not winning the war" or "the war is not winnable" was being heard more and more often, we started hearing also about the possibility of a dialogue with the "good Taliban". No empty hands here! Largesse in the shape of a cool $500 million (on the table) and more to come would be available to grease the rails under the "good Taliban integration express" wheels!
The shaky premise: And just who, in the confused American perception, would be riding the "good Taliban" express. Those who lay down arms, dissociate themselves from the bad Taliban and promise to leave peacefully under the double umbrella provided by Karzai, who himself lives under the American umbrella?
Or those who break ranks with the bad Taliban and join the Afghan National Army (ANA) or Afghan National Police (ANP) under American tutelage and control, and agree to fight against their erstwhile comrades as mercenaries?
It is a measure of confusion among the occupiers of Afghanistan (US and Nato) that as late as Thursday last, Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh said: "I see it (the $500million lollipop) as an investment in reconciliation" whereas hardly 10 days back Hillary Clinton was unequivocal in her statement that no reconciliation with the Taliban was in the offing and only integration (at the US terms) was being considered.
Elaborating on the premise on which the new approach is based, the Nato Chief in Afghanistan (a former Prime Minister of Denmark) explains: "Many of the insurgents are not in it (fighting the occupying forces) for religious or ideological reasons ...... but they fight for the Taliban for small amounts of money simply to make a living". So the American money is now in the field, so to say, to replace the Taliban money.
Based on this shaky premise "reintegration" and not "reconciliation" thus seems to be the American official line for the present which is a halfway house at best. Neither here nor there! Americans appear to imply: they would have no truck with the Taliban, but are willing to "integrate" those among the "insurgents" (actually freedom-fighters) into the Afghan-American fabric, so to say, if they are ready to change sides and settle down in a trade or business for which they would, presumably, be provided financial resources or to join forces with them to fight against their erstwhile comrades.
We cannot resist remarking that it would probably make much more sense if the Taliban were to make an offer to the Afghan army, police and administration to break ranks and join with the Taliban to drive the occupiers out of their country. In any case, as things stand, the Afghan Army and police force despite overwhelming US and Nato support, admittedly control no more than a quarter of the country while the Taliban writ appears to prevail over the rest of Afghanistan.
In either case can America be sure that many of those accepting the offer to be "integrated", will not, in fact, really have their own agenda to sabotage the American plan? This is no idle speculation. Look at another way the proposed "reintegration" is the opposite of what has been happening for some time past. Men of the Afghan National Police otherwise under tutelage of American and Nato bosses, have been regularly deserting ranks.
Afghan National Military suffers also from desertions. Even worse for the occupying forces and their dream of subjugating Afghan yearning for freedom from the yoke of foreign occupation, there are frequent instances of armed policemen and armymen attacking and killing the US and Nato soldiers and then making good their escape with arms or sacrificing their life in the process.
Carrot and stick: In the backdrop of the integration and money (carrot) looms the imminent arrival on the scene, of 30,000 more troops from the US (the stick). Whereas the surge (stick) was apparently planned and decided upon some months ago, the reintegration (carrot) is a new phenomenon whose modalities and methodology lack clarity.
How will the money be spent? Will the "penitent" Taliban be paid a monthly sum and/or helped towards establishing a living (shop or land) business or pressed into service against their former comrades or employed in any other innovative manner?
As it turns out a major concern of the architects of the "integration" phenomenon is protecting the "integrated" from the wrath of those fighting the occupation army, which is in the country purportedly to help Karzai government. A fig-leaf if ever there was one!
One of the professed reasons for the US attack on Afghanistan was the support allegedly provided to al Qaeda by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The US government under Obama continues to harp on this theme and cites as the main reason for its continued armed aggression in Afghanistan, the presence of al Qaeda in the country.
Contradicting itself, however, the US military and civilian leaders have repeatedly claimed that their infamous drone strikes have broken the back of al Qaeda and as a result, it is no longer in a position to plan and execute a major attack on the US a la 11/9.
In fact, this "success story" is the justification in American eyes for killing around ten innocent Afghan people for every al Qaeda man eliminated in drone attacks! A machine under the control and direction of people sitting in the safety of their homeland half way around the globe, attacking unsuspecting humans, from several miles above ground, cannot distinguish one man from another and can only be employed by those who have no respect for justice or human life and have no qualms about killing ten innocent man as long as they get a single man they want.
America's great delusion: It is in their perception that al Qaeda is America's real and the only chief enemy that American governments have long deluded themselves. America has to look no more than right under its nose to discover the real reason for the US being the villain of the peace in the eyes of billions of people across the globe, who have grievously suffered from its own immoral and unethical policies.
Israel was created with and is sustained by American support. Its creation in a land where Jews numbered no more than 5 % in the land occupied by it by uprooting millions of Palestinians they have lived in for thousands of years. Obama asked Israel to stop creating more settlements in defiance of numerous UN resolutions.
But within days Hillary Clinton diluted Obama's advice by expressing satisfaction during her subsequent visit to Israel that she was encouraged by the fact that the Prime Minister had agreed to go slow on the settlements! So much for the Obama advice! On numerous occasions America has used its veto to kill UN resolutions against illegitimate, cruel and immoral Israeli acts against Palestinians.
The Gaza carnage for which the UN has tried to move for Israel's trial for war crimes is meeting opposition from America. In occupied Kashmir unarmed people are being subjected to daily murders, rapes and other acts of oppression by more than half a million strong Indian army.
Their "crime" is their struggle for their right of self-determination granted to them by the UN half a century back but denied by India through use of brute force. America our great ally has chosen not to raise a finger to put pressure on India to change the genocide in occupied Kashmir and allow Kashmiris to exercise their right of self-determination.
Take Iran. Its civilian nuclear programme is under constant threat of sanctions and armed intervention by a group of countries, led by America. But Israel cannot even be asked to let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEC) visit Israel to inspect its nuclear arsenal!
Unless America revises it's lop-sided, hurtful and unjust policy towards Muslims - a policy working in tandem with Israel's long term expansionist plans - the hatred Muslims feel towards it would fuel a -Qaeda like thinking and actions on a wide scale. America's failure not to see this cause and effect phenomenon has led it into a blind alley from which it will find no "honourable" exit.
Strategy revealed to enemy Start return in July 2011:
-- India's role
-- If eventually the "reintegration" proposal fails, as is more than probable, the US civil strife Pakistan would have a better chance to let US off the hook if it is allowed to play a role in talking to the Taliban whom it knows and understands better than any other country or political entity in the world.
Mullah Omar Gulbadin Hikmatyar. (owajid@yahoo.com)