So what is going on with Af-Pak? A review of a week's coverage of the Afghan war

Anyone reading the news about Afghanistan last week would be forgiven for being confused. In the course of a few days readers were submerged with a series of contradictory headlines. On December 14, we were told that “Intelligence Reports Offer Dim View of Afghan War.” The following day, another article reported that “For Red Cross, Aid Conditions Hit New Low in Afghanistan.” This left us ill-prepared for the December 16 announcement by Barack Obama that his strategy in Afghanistan is “on track.” So what exactly is going on there? Three conflicting narratives – from US intelligence agencies, NGOs on the ground and the US military, respectively - are competing for the public’s attention. Whose narrative should we trust?

Losing “hearts and minds”

The picture painted by NGOs on the ground is not pretty. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) gave a news conference this week to “express deep concern that Afghanistan security had deteriorated to its worst point since the overthrow of the Taliban nine years ago.” This is particularly significant given that the ICRC usually avoids the public eye and rarely voices its concerns so openly. But it chose to break its usual reserve to report that the number of Afghan civilians killed or forced to leave their home has steadily increased “against the backdrop of a proliferation of armed actors.” Reading between the lines, some might see a thinly veiled reference to the 30,000 troop surge ordered by Obama when he took office.

While civilian casualties have risen, relief workers have also been victims of worsening violence. At least 100 workers have been killed so far this year, the worst tally since the war started. This has prompted a sharp reexamination of the US strategy to win “hearts and minds,” which NGOs accuse of militarizing humanitarian aid. The US counterinsurgency strategy is based on associating development aid to the military push, which is illustrated by the “Provincial Reconstruction Teams” (PRTs) staffed by both troops and civilians. Most of the time, these civilians turn out to be contractors from profit-making private development companies. Not surprisingly, they have often been targeted by insurgents as being part of the conflict. Eighty aid contractors employed by USAID were killed this year. While NATO officials argue that the insurgents don’t distinguish between aid workers, NGOs such as Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) have managed to operate relatively safely by not becoming associated with any program strengthening the government. As one member of MSF points out, “the government is just one of many warring parties.”

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Pakistan

The US counterinsurgency strategy is failing and more civilians are being killed than ever. But for US intelligence agencies, the biggest problem in Afghanistan is not the US military presence, of course. It’s Pakistan. Two reports released this week – one on Afghanistan and one on Pakistan – argue that there can be no success in Afghanistan unless Pakistan agrees to hunt down insurgents operating from safe havens across the border. The reports lament Pakistan’s lack of cooperation with the US even when it’s accepting $2 billion in so-called “aid” money (most of it goes to the Pakistani military).

Pakistani citizens, whose opinion is rarely considered worth hearing, would beg to disagree with the assertion that the Pakistani government doesn’t take US interests to heart. Diplomatic cables recently published by Wikileaks reveal – or rather, confirm - the degree of corruption within the Pakistani government and the ease with which it acquiesces to US demands. In 2008, for example, Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani told American Ambassador Anne Paterson that he “didn’t care” if drone strikes were launched against his country as long as the “right people” were targeted. “We’ll protest in the National Assembly,” Gilani added cynically, “and then ignore it.” As Pakistani writer Tariq Ali puts it: “The WikiLeaks confirm what we already know about Af-Pak. Pakistan is a US satrapy: its military and political leaders constitute a venal elite happy to kill and maim its people at the behest of a foreign power.” Researchers at the New America Foundation estimate that between 1,283 and 1,971 people have been killed since drone strikes started 6 years ago.

Incidentally, more than 100 drone strikes were reported during this year alone, up from 53 last year. Apparently this is still not enough for the CIA, which has been running this not-so-covert war since the Bush era. No doubt these recent intelligence reports are aimed at pressuring the Obama administration to step up US war efforts in Pakistan.

The Al Qaeda red herring

Not that Obama needs any pressuring, really. Pakistan was right at the center of his speech on the Afghanistan review. While the review was more optimistic about the situation in Afghanistan than the intelligence reports, it also targeted Pakistan as being critical to achieving anything close to success. The Obama administration is planning to step up attacks against insurgents in the tribal areas, which means more strikes using Predator and Reaper drones. The old Al-Qaeda bogeyman has been brought out of the closet to justify what is slowly becoming a full-fledged war on Pakistan. "Today, al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the border region is under more pressure than at any point since they fled Afghanistan nine years ago” says Obama. This means, of course, that strikes have to be intensified to preserve the momentum.

Let me get this straight. About a year ago it was reported that Al Qaeda had a grand total of 300 members in the tribal areas of Pakistan. This year there has already been 100 drone strikes, which killed more than 1,200 people. Almost every time the establishment media, dutifully relaying official statements, identified the dead as “militants” or “suspected militants.” And still we are to believe that more strikes are needed to completely defeat Al Qaeda. Next we’ll learn that it has found a way to clone its members.

Who to believe?

So which of these 3 narratives sound more convincing? The difference between the US intelligence agencies’ position and that of their military counterpart shouldn’t be overstated. Although one is slightly more optimistic than the other, ultimately they both advocate for the same thing: intensification of the war on Pakistan. We are told that there’s a “dispute” between the military and intelligence agencies (see this NY Times article) and a debate within the Obama administration, but in reality they’re just two sides of the same coin.

The problem in Afghanistan is not Pakistan. The problem is that the US is following the path of every colonial power before it. The occupation and counterinsurgency are creating a major backlash among the population, who’s getting tired of being “liberated” after 9 years of war. This is something that neither the military nor the intelligence agencies can acknowledge, of course. Instead they’re hoping that pointing their fingers at Pakistan long enough and screaming “Al Qaeda! Al Qaeda!” at the top of their lungs will create enough distraction so that people forget to look at what’s really going on in Afghanistan. But are we seriously supposed to believe that the solution to Afghanistan’s woes is to increase strikes on Pakistan, a country that recently experienced a natural catastrophe worse than the Asian tsunami of 2004, the Pakistan earthquake of 2005, and the recent earthquake in Haiti combined, and that is already incredibly volatile?

A Goodies Basket of Diplomatic and Security Guarantees for Israel – In exchange For a Mere 90-Day Settlement Freeze

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel seems to have secured enough votes from his Security Cabinet to approve a US-backed settlement freeze which is suppose to break the current impasse in the peace negotiations with the Palestinians. The Washington Times reported that Mr. Netanyahu brought the proposal before the Cabinet with “great determination” to secure a positive vote. According to the New York Times, President Obama commends Mr. Netanyahu for taking such a constructive step – “it’s not easy for him to do.”

From these descriptions, one is led to think that Mr. Netanyahu is making quite a noble effort in the name of peace by accepting the harsh terms of the proposed freeze. Hardly. For a mere 90-day freeze on construction in the West Bank – Jerusalem is excluded from the freeze – Mr. Netanyahu is being handed a goodies basket of diplomatic and security guarantees from the US. The deal is incredibly lop-sided especially considering the widespread opinion internationally that Israel is violating international law by continuing settlement construction.

The proposed deal, negotiated by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, means Hanukkah has come early for Mr. Netanyahu. In exchange for a one-time-only 90-day settlement moratorium, Israel will receive 20 F35 Jets worth $3 billion, a promise that the US will veto any future Security Council resolution that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza without Israeli agreement, as well as assurances that the Obama administration will not press for any further settlement freezes. Yet supposedly this was “not easy” for Mr. Netanyahu to accept.

The effect this deal will have on the peace process is questionable. The effect this deal will have on broader peace and security in the Middle East is unfortunately clear. The new F35 Joint Strike Fighters Jets that are part of the deal have not yet even been deployed to US forces. Funneling more highly advanced arms into the Middle East, while a welcome boon for US arms exporters, will only fuel the upward spiral of military spending and the Middle East regional arms race. Meanwhile, despite showering Israel with gifts, the Palestinian question will in all likelihood still remain unresolved once the 90-day freeze is over.

Punish the whistleblowers, reward the passive onlookers: the staggering double standard around US war crimes

The US Justice Department has announced that it would not press charges over the destruction of CIA videotapes depicting the “enhanced interrogation” of terrorism suspects. In 2005, Jose Rodriguez Jr, a top CIA official, authorized the destruction of 92 tapes showing two detainees being repeatedly waterboarded. Although the CIA was instructed by a court law not to destroy evidence of torture, CIA officials argue that their motive was innocent: they were only trying to protect the identity of the interrogators.

This decision shocked many civil liberties and human rights groups. However, it is consistent with the stance adopted by the Obama administration, which has vowed to “look forward, not backwards,” and has made no serious efforts to investigate crimes committed during the so-called “war on terror.” Not surprisingly, the very people who attempted to cover up the widespread use of torture against terrorism suspects are walking free. According to one of Rodriguez’ attorneys, he “is an American hero, a true patriot who only wanted to protect his people and his country.” And his own back.

Conversely, attempts to “look back” are not welcome, and whistleblowers are being treated like criminals. The website Wikileaks angered many powerful people when it published classified documents on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These documents revealed how the US military was responsible for the widespread killing of civilians, and had passively condoned the torture of detainees at the hands of Iraqi security forces.

Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of leaking classified military documents on the Afghan war to Wikileaks, could face a 52 year sentence. Salon’s Glenn Greenwald reported this week that US citizens associated with Wikileaks had been detained at US airports and their electronic equipments seized, “all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation.” In July, Jacob Applebaum, a spokesman for Wikileaks, was detained at Newark airport while returning from a trip and interrogated at length. His electronic equipment was confiscated, and still has to be handed back to him to this day. Last week, David House, a 23-year-old researcher who created the Bradley Manning Support Network, was detained at O’Hare airport and interrogated by two FBI agents.

Accusing Wikileaks of having blood on its hands was not enough. Now the US government has seemingly launched a campaign of harassment and intimidation against Wikileaks and its supporters. Meanwhile, in the name of “looking forward,” charges are being dropped against the people responsible for covering up the systematic torture of detainees. How long will it be before looking backward becomes a crime?

The NYT and the art of selective reporting: Women suicides by fire in Afghanistan

Last August, Time Magazine used as its cover a shocking picture of Aisha, a young Afghan woman who was sentenced to have her nose and ears cut off by a Taliban commander. Next to the picture was the caption “What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan” - no question mark. Time’s cover was seen by many as a thinly veiled attempt to justify the war in Afghanistan by way of the long debunked argument that the US-led intervention is about protecting women. Although the situation of Afghan women has certainly not markedly improved since 2001, they still serve as a convenient alibi for US war efforts in the region.

This was illustrated again this morning by an article in the New York Times. “For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out” might be less obvious in its politics than Time’s cover, but its take on the plight of Afghan women is very similar. The article focuses on the high number of women who each year attempt to commit suicide by setting themselves on fire. Most women resort to this extreme act after years of abuse by their husband and their family. In some cases, the burns are actually inflicted by relatives, as a way to get rid of a woman who has “stained” the family’s honor.

No doubt the fate of these women is terrible. However, the Times’ coverage of the situation is severely lacking. Not once in the article does the author mention that the US has been occupying Afghanistan for almost 10 years now. There is absolutely no examination of how this might affect the situation of Afghan women. While the article states that women are attempting suicide to escape “from poverty, from forced marriages, from the abuse and despondency,” it is careful not to add “war” to the list of ills affecting women in Afghanistan. The fact that women are often the first victims of conflict – which robs them of their husbands, confines them to their home, forces them to move as troops advance, and often kills them – never seems to cross the author’s mind. The suffering of Afghan women is not worth reporting if it’s inflicted by anyone else than those backward Afghan men. “Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law” – but certainly not at the hands of US soldiers.

Tellingly, when the article mentions that the number of burn cases is “up nearly 30 percent from last year,” it never links this increase to the escalating US war efforts in the region. The addition of 30,000 US troops in Afghanistan last year appears nowhere. It’s as if the lives of these women and the US military intervention were happening in two parallel universes.

This selective reporting allows the author to subtly reinforce the idea that Afghan women need protection. By pointing to the gruesome fate of these women, the article implies that they’re in need of a benevolent benefactor that will “liberate” them. But the US intervention so far has had the opposite effect. If anything, it has made life more difficult for these women. While the article mentions that poverty is one of the lead causes of suicide, it evades the question of how women’s livelihoods have been affected by the war. By omitting this fact and others, the Times seems to be suggesting that the solution to the plight of Afghan women is more war, not less.

More Afghan civilians killed by insurgents than by international forces in 2009, says The New York Times. Is it such good news?

The New York Times has never made a secret of its support for US involvement in Afghanistan. Apart from a couple of welcome op-eds by Bob Herbert, the Times has often been rather biased in its reporting of the war as well as its consequences on both Afghanistan and the US. This article about a new UN report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan is no exception to the rule. To be fair, the report by UNAMA (UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan) does indeed highlight that insurgents, not American forces, have been responsible for the majority of civilian deaths in Afghanistan this past year. While Anti-Government elements (AGES) were responsible for 67% of civilian casualties in 2009, pro-Government Forces (PGF) were only responsible for 25% of them. For those who wonder how this adds up to 100%, it doesn’t. The remaining 8% were killed “as a result of cross-fire or (...) by unexploded ordinance.” Basically we're not entirely sure of who killed them. If there ever was a proof of the limits of reasoning based on statistics, that would be it. Still, The New York Times takes satisfaction in the fact that the number of people killed by Afghan government forces or international forces has decreased by 28% compared to 2008, and credits General McChrystal’s new strategy for it. Of course no one would deny that it is good news when less civilians are being killed by air strikes and raids.

According to the Times, "the most striking aspect of the report was the shift in responsibility for the deaths of Afghan civilians." Not quite the whole story. The article mentions only in passing that 2009 has been the worst year for civilians since the Taliban government fell in 2001. In 2009, 2 412 civilians were killed, compared to 2 118 in 2008 and 1 523 in 2007. Since the Times seems so fond of statistics, it might have pointed out that this represents - roughly - a 58% increase in civilian deaths in just over 2 years. This would have put things in perspective. The UN report further highlights that because of the intensification of the conflict, violence has spread to regions that were considered relatively secure before. An escalating conflict also means more insecurity for civilians - especially women, who can barely leave their home - more poverty, less access to health and education, and so on and so forth. Is the fact that American and international forces are killing less civilians the single most important development in Afghanistan? Hardly. 

The Times' bias in favor of the war blinds it to the rippling effect of increased military presence in Afghanistan. It brushes too quickly over the connection between rising violence from insurgents and the surge in American and international troops. True, the 30,000 troops Obama promised to send have not arrived yet. But, as TomDispatch - among others - reported in December 2009, “the U.S. military, along with its civilian and intelligence counterparts, has been in an almost constant state of surge since the last days of the Bush administration." And the US already sent 21,000 additional troops in March 2009.

This is not rocket science: as more foreign troops pour into Afghanistan, insurgents will become more aggressive, and the conflict will spread to more regions. Thinking only in terms of how many civilians American troops directly kill hardly covers the damage done in Afghanistan. It's time to come to terms with the fact that the presence of international troops by itself kills civilians everyday.

Welcome to Thomas Friedman’s parallel universe, where the US is a knight in shining armor

In November 2008, the Yes Men published a fake edition of the New York Times with welcome front page news: the Iraq war was over, Bush was being indicted for high treason, and Thomas Friedman was resigning as columnist in the Times. If only… we would then be spared columns like his most recent one on the Fort Hood shooting. Friedman’s “America vs. The Narrative” is wrong on so many levels that it’s hard to know where to start.

Friedman proposes a simplistic reading of what happened in Fort Hood, based on the assumption that the only reason a man suddenly decided to shoot his fellow soldiers is because he was a Muslim. End of the story. “Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist spurred to action by ‘The Narrative’” says Friedman. The “Narrative” (which, for purposes of dramatization, deserves a capital “N”) includes the idea that the US has declared war on Islam.

Never mind that Major Hasan tried to get a military discharge before the massacre. Never mind also that Fort Hood soldiers have accounted for more suicides than any other army post since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. And never mind that a strikingly similar incident occurred in May 2009, when a US soldier – who was not Muslim – shot five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a US base in Baghdad. Who remembers that anyway? The only thing we now remember about Major Hasan is that he is a Muslim. The fact that he was unwilling to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan is secondary. Bottom-line is: Hasan is just one of those “humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males” anyway. Ironically, Friedman is guilty of doing exactly what he claims to be fighting against - promoting a simplistic narrative.

How, asks an indignant Friedman, could Muslims ever think the US is at war against them, when we’ve been so friendly to them (and the rest of the world) all this time? His narrative casts the US as a benevolent defendant and promoter of freedom worldwide. Friedman has apparently been living in a parallel universe. Can he really believe that the last two decades of US foreign policy have been “largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny?” Can a seasoned observer of US foreign policy really say seriously that the US acts out of benevolence, not national interest?

His “let’s bring freedom to the world” narrative is simply not credible. It was fatefully undermined by the lies that led to the Iraq war, and the claim that the war was fought for the benefit of the Iraqis. Likewise, the idea that the US intervention in Afghanistan has “liberated” the population – the women especially – has long proven cynical and empty. Not only has the condition of Afghan women not improved, they are now caught in the cross-fire, killed, wounded and forced to flee whenever troops advance in Afghanistan. Malalai Joya, a young politician who was suspended from the Afghan Parliament, has repeatedly asked for the US to leave her country. Last time I checked, she was not a “frustrated or socially alienated Muslim male.” Unfortunately, she doesn’t fit Friedman’s narrative.

In Friedman’s binary world, Muslims are either blood-thirsty terrorists or helpless victims. The US might “punish” the terrorists in ever nastier ways (think: rendition, torture, extra-judicial killings), but fear not, because it also rescues the oppressed: “for every Abu Ghraib,” says Friedman smugly, “our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.” Not only is Friedman’s narrative offensive, it’s also deeply infantilizing. And Friedman’s sense of timing in mobilizing his evidence couldn’t be worse. He mentions the power of free elections as one of the benefits the US confers on Muslims. We’ve seen how successful these elections have been in Afghanistan, where Karzai was declared the winner after ample proof of fraud.

Friedman complains that “Muslims” - whatever this generalization means - are constructing a narrative that conveniently allows them to blame it all on the West. His own narrative is a convenient but deeply false construct. Isn’t it time to put aside the “frustrated” and “socially alienated” cartoon characters Friedman proposes, and instead look at reality honestly and squarely?

“In Afghanistan, Taliban surpasses al-Qaeda” - Oh really?

Better late than never. If the Washington Post provides any an indication of the mood in D.C, there might be reason to rejoice. Or bang your head against the wall. The good news is that the Post seems to have finally come to terms with the shocking fact that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are two different entities. In an article published last week, the Post reports that the power dynamic in Afghanistan is shifting, quoting estimates that place the number of al-Qaeda members somewhere around… a hundred. It is, of course, difficult to assess the exact number of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, but knowing that their number is closer to 10,000 than 100, it’s hard to imagine how al-Qaeda could ever have had the upper hand in a supposed “balance of power.” Kudos to the Post for stating the obvious: al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is close to nil, and has been so for awhile. For anyone who has been following the situation in Afghanistan, the breaking-news that “in Afghanistan, Taliban surpasses al-Qaeda” feels a bit like a damp squib.

But even if al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan is now reduced to about a hundred members, there are still ideological ties between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who share a “symbiotic relationship.” At least that’s why the Post and the US administration say, with the underlying assumption that if US troops leave Afghanistan, al-Qaeda would be back in no time to stage attacks against the US et al. The “safe haven” myth just won’t die. It should be filed with another myth that the Post casually perpetuates: “Al-Qaeda is the teacher of the Taliban.” Hum, who did provide arms to the Afghans during the Soviet occupation?

Still, it is true that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have something in common: they want the US out of Afghanistan. Interestingly, the Post acknowledges that it’s because they are united by a common enemy that the Taliban and al-Qaeda cooperate, but fails to see the connection with the US occupation.
The fact is that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have different purposes. The Taliban want to rule Afghanistan - which al-Qaeda has absolutely no interest in – and they know that “the more they connect themselves to al-Qaeda, the less the population’s going to welcome them back.” But as long as they will face 100,000 NATO troops, they will share a common aim. So, if we follow the Post’s argument, the US has to stay in Afghanistan to keep al-Qaeda from coming back, but the troops’ presence actually makes it more likely that the Taliban will welcome al-Qaeda fighters. Sounds like a catch-22.

Which brings us to the logical conclusion: sending 40,000 more troops is not going to solve the problem. The solution in Afghanistan is political, not military. It’s been said so many times by so many informed observers that it’s starting to sound like a broken record. But wouldn’t it be nice if the Post decided once again to state the obvious?