A Taliban Comeback?

As unprecedented Taliban violence sweeps across southern Afghanistan, fourplayers in the region – Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and NATO – are lockedin a tense standoff rather than cooperating to defeat the terrorists. At stakeis the future survival of Afghanistan’s moderate government and stability inPakistan.

To prop up Afghanistan and combat the Taliban, the US and NATO may have tomake major concessions to Pakistan’s military regime, but any concessionswould anger the Afghans, encourage the extremists and allow the unpopularmilitary to dominate Pakistan’s political scene for another five years.

More than 200 people were killed and hundreds wounded in fierce fighting thatswept four provinces in southern Afghanistan starting May 18 and continued forthe next three days. It was the worst bout of violence since the defeat of theTaliban in December 2001 and the opening shots in a promised Taliban offensivethis summer to deter some 9,000 NATO troops from deploying in southernAfghanistan.

"NATO will not fail in Afghanistan….the family of nations will expectnothing less than success," said General James Jones, the head of US and NATOforces in Europe, adding that NATO will double its deployment in Afghanistan to18,000 troops. Jones also made an impassioned plea for NATO governments to endthe caveats that they impose on their troops, making it next to impossible forcommanders to run a proper military campaign. The caveats number 71, and Jonescalls them "NATO’s operational cancer’’ and "an impediment to success."

President Hamid Karzai and the Afghans worry about NATO. Unlike the US-ledcombat force, some NATO countries contribute troops only for reconstruction. TheTaliban know this and test NATO’s commitment. Some 800 Afghans and 34 foreignsoldiers have been killed this year in escalating violence, as small Talibangroups expand to hundreds of fighters each. An indirect confirmation of thegrowing Taliban presence and the difficulty in fighting them without largecivilian casualties was evident in late May, when in a single night of bombingon a Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, the coalition forces claimed tohave killed 80 fighters but the operation also took some 17 civilian lives.

But this setback is unlikely to change the Taliban design to test US resolve.NATO’s deployment is part of Washington’s agenda to reduce its forces inAfghanistan. The US is pulling 3,000 troops this summer and maybe more beforethe November congressional elections. Most Afghans anticipate a full USwithdrawal, despite American promises that it remains committed to Afghanistan.The Karzai government is angry with Washington, and also frustrated at the USattitude toward Pakistan.

Senior NATO officials in Madrid told YaleGlobal that Pakistan’s militaryregime is turning a blind eye to Taliban recruitment and control taking place inBaluchistan province. Pakistan has lost more than 600 troops fighting Al Qaedaand other terrorist forces in the North West Frontier Province, but has donelittle to control the Taliban in Baluchistan, say NATO officers.

US and European officials have urged Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf todo more. "We are trying to engage with Pakistan and convince them to do theright thing," says a senior NATO officer. A recent NATO delegation toIslamabad tried to woo the military by offering officers visits to NATO schoolsin Europe. Pakistan insists it is doing what it can to reign in the Taliban.General Shaukat Sultan, the army’s principle spokesman, says Pakistan will actthe moment NATO or the US gives, "actionable intelligence as to where Talibanleaders are."

However Pakistan’s real gripe is with the Americans. In recent months anangry Musharraf has quietly, but deliberately defied them. Relations between thetwo countries have not been so poor since 9/11. In March Bush spent just a fewhours in Islamabad after spending several days in India, where he gaverecognition to India’s nuclear weapons program, but refused to do the same forPakistan.

So in recent weeks Islamabad has said the investigation into top nuclearscientist A. Q. Khan, the world’s worst proliferator of nuclear technology, isat an end – just when Washington again urges Pakistan to allow USinvestigators direct access to Khan, who is under house arrest in Islamabad andcould prove that Iran is intent on making nuclear weapons. More than a decadeago Khan provided key nuclear equipment to Iran. However, Islamabad is in nomood to do Washington any favors or annoy Tehran.

"Yes we are under a lot of pressure on the issue of Dr. A. Q. Khan, but wewill not surrender," Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri told the upper house ofparliament on May 19. "We are an ally of the US in the global war on terror,but we will not take dictation from anybody on our national interests.’’Pakistan also pushes ahead to build a gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan toIndia, at a cost of US $7.2 billion, despite repeated US warnings not to do so.

The push for a lucrative gas pipeline to India, however, has not reducedPakistan’s public antipathy towards India. The Pakistani army accusesWashington and NATO of turning a blind eye to India funding an insurgency inBaluchistan that has claimed hundreds of lives. India denies the charge.Pakistan is also convinced that the US and Afghanistan are allowing Indian spyagencies unparalleled access among the Pashtun tribes in southern Afghanistan,from where they are destabilizing Pakistan.

So it’s not surprising that the military still looks to the Taliban as itslong-term proxy force in Afghanistan. The military assumes that they have asmuch of a right as the government in Kabul to influence events and make keyappointments in the Pashtun belt in southern Afghanistan – even thoughAfghanistan is a sovereign state. The army has a legacy of influencing the southsince the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 27 years ago. Pakistan wants theAmericans and NATO to concede to its version of reality and also give theTaliban and other Afghan extremist factions a place at the table in Kabul.

Musharraf’s real aim is to get unqualified US endorsement for hisre-election as president for another five-year term, while retaining his post asarmy chief. Thus, recent statements by senior US officials, including NationalSecurity Adviser Stephen Hadley, demanding free and fair elections in 2007 andcivilian control over the Pakistan, disturb Pakistani generals.

Musharraf insists there will be free and fair parliamentary and presidentialelections, but the army is already making plans to limit the participation ofthe Pakistan Peoples Party, the largest secular opposition party. In 2002 thearmy rigged the elections, and parliament is now packed with pro-armypoliticians and Islamic fundamentalists.

Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place. A fair election would mostlikely result in a parliament hostile to continued army rule. However a riggedelection endangers his grip on power and the army’s prestige, and he views USsupport for the army as critical in mitigating international fallout. However,military rule has run its course in Pakistan. It is deeply unpopular and nolonger has the credibility to resist Islamic fundamentalists. At the end of theday, Washington might do what it has done time and again: take a deep breath andsupport the only ally that may still stand between the planned US withdrawal andthe return of the Taliban.

Ahmed Rashid is the author of Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, andFundamentalism in Central Asia and Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam inCentral Asia and a correspondent for The Daily Telegraph. Rights: ©2006 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobalOnline