‘We got it wrong, for sure’

While the political and military establishment of the United States grapples with the causes and consequences of its debacle in Afghanistan, we will have to contend with how Pakistan figures in this potentially fractious exercise. Meanwhile, of course, the unfolding situation in Afghanistan will keep us entangled in a predicament that we may not, yet, have fully comprehended.

This means that we, too, should undertake a proper and carefully structured investigation of our actions and policies vis-a-vis Afghanistan in the wake of the astounding triumph of the Taliban and its ensuing challenges. Ideally, parliament is the venue where this essential discourse is launched, bolstered by a debate in the media and research-oriented think tanks.

But our capacity to undertake this exercise, we know, is severely limited. The media is caught in its own struggle for freedom as the administration is stubbornly seeking to restrict the citizens’ access to information and informed deliberation of national issues. As it is, our intellectual resources seem inadequate for generating an in-depth and innovative exploration of the present state of our governance and the debilitating contradictions of our society.

Afghanistan is a good example of how policies crafted within the high walls of the citadel of power can be deficient in spirit and in execution. Take it as a measure of our democracy that parliament is not taken into confidence on Afghanistan related developments and our relations with, say, the United States. A political environment conducive to a probing debate on foreign policy does not apparently exist. We cannot be sure about where this policy comes from.

We may have some idea about what a debate could be like from following the Congressional hearings that were held in Washington DC this week and the media discussions that these proceedings have spawned. Because of its influence on and interference in global affairs, America’s politics has its theatrical attractions for us.

I found the CNN coverage quite engaging and liked the brutally candid manner in which analysts judged the American defeat in Afghanistan and the chaotic withdrawal of its forces. One quote by a former military leader has stuck in my mind: “We got it wrong, for sure”. How many others, elsewhere, should have uttered these words?

One major development this week was a reference to Pakistan in a bill introduced in the US Senate on Monday by 22 Republican senators. It is titled: the ‘Afghanistan Counterterrorism, Oversight, and Accountability Act’. Though it covers a number of issues related to withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan and strategies for counterterrorism, the cause for great disquiet in Pakistan is that it seeks a report on support provided to the Taliban between 2001 to 2020 by state and non-state actors, including the government of Pakistan.

The bill also seeks “an assessment of support by state and non-state actors, including the government of Pakistan, for the 2021 offensive of the Taliban that toppled the government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including the provision of sanctuary space, financial support, intelligence support, logistics and medical support, training, equipping, and tactical, operational, or strategic direction”. With similar clauses, it also refers to the September offense of the Taliban in the Panjshir valley.

There should be no doubt about the message that this bill has delivered and it is bound to have some impact on Pakistan’s relations with the US, against a darkened perspective of a trust deficit between the old allies in the long saga of Afghanistan. Essentially, the bill is calling for US sanctions against Pakistan.

Naturally, there has been an angry response in Pakistan with remarks made in the Senate, the media and the political domain. One would expect a solemn policy review and reflection on why Pakistan had applauded the Taliban victory.

It may be of lesser importance for us but I would like to focus on some aspects of the hearings on Afghanistan before the Senate Armed Forces Committee in which Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Mark Milley and head of US Central Command Gen Kenneth McKenzie had to field some tricky and harsh questions from the legislators.

I want to particularly highlight Gen Milley’s encounter with the senators, who were mainly concerned about why American commanders and intelligence officials failed to predict the rapid collapse of the Afghan army and the government. Another concern was whether the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan would energise Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State.

It was revealed during the hearings held on Tuesday and Wednesday that the military leadership had opposed President Biden’s decision to totally withdraw American forces. This was the first time that the Pentagon officials publicly stated this disagreement. It may be hard for us to imagine but one senator labelled Gen Milley’s actions as “treasonous”.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton asked Gen Milley why he hadn’t resigned when his advice was rejected by the president. This is what Gen Milley said in response: “As a senior military officer, resigning is a really serious thing. It’s [a] political act if I’m resigning in protest. My statutory responsibility is to provide legal advice, or at best military advice to the president, and that’s my legal requirement. That’s what the law is”.

He added: “The president does not have to agree with that advice, he doesn’t have to make those decisions just because we are generals, and it would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken”.

Gen Milley continued: “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we are going to accept and do or not. That’s not our job. The principle of civilian control of the military is absolute, it’s critical to the republic”.

Now you see that Afghanistan has activated an entire range of thoughts and reactions.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com