The Angry American
General Mirza Aslam Beg
It would be difficult to paint the face of a Civilized American, as much of his diabolical face is popularly characterized as Ugly American. There is also a third hue in the Kaleidoscope - the Angry American. This article draws the contours of this face and more specifically, the dynamics of US rage and its impulsive geo-political adventure in Afghanistan, is the focus.
First, let us accept the patent reality that USA has all the charm that essentially is seductive enough to lure all nationalities and races. It is El Dorado - the promised land - with all its gravitational pull. Dignity of life and freedom, social justice, tolerance, liberal values, symbolized in Soft Power, find expression in modes of day to day existence. A truly pluralistic society is what America is from within. Contrary to the melting-pot image, it is a fascinating salad-bowl, where fruits and vegetable mix, but without losing identities. This is America’s civilizational achievement, but it is only one side of the portrait.
On the contrary, the Hard Power reflections of America beyond its borders to maintain its global primacy is structured into the unholy strategic alliance, towards fulfillment of goals and objectives of greed and rapacity, which are at cross purposes with the cherished values, which characterize USA’s domestic ethos. The strategic alliance between the State Department, Pentagon, Defence Industries and the Oil Companies, establishes the Power Nexus where lies the American sovereignty. The great forebears of America - Lincoln, Jefferson and Wilson therefore, appear to have lost relevance for its foreign policy. This power nexus thus supports Israel as “the bright light now shining in the Middle East”, - to borrow Kennedy’s depiction - burning the hearths and home of the Palestinians and the atrocities committed on them. The advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister, Zalman Shoval, had no hesitation in saying: “Actually we do the same thing they (the Americans) do and they do the same thing we do,” with reference to what USA is now doing in their war against terror in Afghanistan.
The American Power Nexus has vested interest in money, earned through sale of armament and oil to which Eisenhower, in his humane retirement speech had passionately counselled: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents in a final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, from those who are cold and not clothed.” What is intended to convey is, that when strategies are determined by corporate organizations and power is channelized towards selling arms and acquiring control over strategic material as in the Gulf war, USA’s image is projected that of a typical imperialist power of the nineteenth century fighting the opium war.
The war launched against Afghanistan in the name of terrorism is in fact a strategic camouflage. For a facilitative role, Pakistan is being induced through economic lolly pops in the same manner as for the services rendered to USA against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 80s, when Pakistan got the worst package of social problems - mass exodus of Afghan refugees, the lingering menace of drug and kalashinkov culture and later economic sanctions were imposed to compound the problems. Yet the ironical predilection of Pakistan to trust a power which has a typical utilitarian approach in determining a strategic partnership, is most intriguing.
The typical American mind-set conditioned by the hegemonic power-seeking ,has accentuated the propensity to assume the global role, which is possible only through extension of much prized status of unipolarity which they are not willing to part with. This strategic obsession finds its support in the prescription provided by Brezizinksi - seize the control of Eurasia. Therefore, the grand design is to actualize it into reality. Barriers are to be removed and Afghanistan is one such obstacle down the road.
The angry face of America finds its manifestation in the shattering of grandiose image of invincibility, ultimate security, primacy and all-round superiority. One has only to recall the authoritarian sense of delusion of power expressed by senior George Bush during the Gulf war: whatever we say goes. Yet a handful of terrorists, through gruesome acts of suicidal attacks on power symbols of America - the World Trade Center and Pentagon, wished to communicate that it was not so. It was the magnitude of terror against the most formidable power which had internalized the myth of invincibility, causing indelible collective trauma. It is indeed a great irony implicit in the fact that a country so tuned to securing its outer space through NMD and being overly equipped with weapons of mass destruction and most sophisticated conventional weapons - missiles, stealth bombers and so forth, should experience such a sudden demolition of its pride, and feel utterly insecure against terrorism. The electronic media and the sensation - hungry Paparazzi, have played no lesser a role in implanting a sense of helplessness and vulnerability, anger and revenge, as displayed on the TV screens, 24 hours a day, proclaiming America strikes Back.
The impotence of American power, has ignited a compensatory urge to seek brutish revenge against Afghanistan - a famished and devastated country and selecting Osama bin Laden as a scapegoat to ventilate the wrath of the super power. It is a unique example in history when massive military forces of USA, the Allies and with the support of practically all nations of the world, are mobilized against an individual, labelled a terrorist, and the Taliban regime, with that intensity of anger and revenge where rationality is the obvious casualty. The decision to launch a military attack on Afghanistan is no less a strategic error, than was the blunder committed by the former Soviet Union in invading Afghanistan. It was expected that within a few days of aerial bombardment, the Taliban command and control system would collapse and the American troops will move-in to capture Osama, dead or alive, dismantle the Alqaida and install a broad based government. But this was not to be. The objectives of war thus having been lost, suggest, a major shift in redefining the objectives, than to continue moving into the error. The reason why America has failed in its objective is, because the war plan was based on faulty intelligence, wrong premises and perceptions, divorced from reality. Both the CIA and the ISI who shared intelligence are to be blamed for this serious failing. And therefore it may be worthwhile to understand the causes of such a failing.
The CIA, after having achieved the objectives of defeat of the Red Army, abandoned Afghanistan, and departed in a haste without determining an appropriate modality for transfer of power, now ironically being advocated - a broad-based government. The CIA, which had a very impressive network of intelligence in Pakistan and Afghanistan, was diverted to the Gulf region to prepare for the impending operation against Iraq. At the same time the ISI was also pulled out of Afghanistan, by the political government. Thus there was no coherent and well conceived Afghan policy - with the result that during the period 1992-94, several unpleasant episodes happened, reflecting souring of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Our school bus was hijacked, our Embassy in Kabul was put on fire and Pakistani Ambassador was beaten up. The political vacuum thus created was filled-in by the neighbours - Iran, Russia, India, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to extend their influence, while the two successive governments in Pakistan of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif were so engrossed in personal confrontational politics that Afghanistan did not figure in their scheme of priorities, and consequently it went through the worst crisis of internecine conflict, resulting in loot, plunder and tyranny perpetuated by the war lords. And to add to the disadvantage of ISI, a major purge was carried out in 1993, replacing a dozen directors and many more experienced officers of ISI, thus denying the organization much valuable experience and expertise. In fact ISI lost contact with ground realities in Afghanistan.
In 1994, Taliban being disenchanted with their elders, emerged indigenously as youth element, equipped with sense of identity to restore peace and order which they did achieve to a great extent. It is wrong to give credit to ISI for creating Taliban. Far from it. They are a product of callous neglect. True, they do represent tribal values and culture and to judge them on the yard stick of Anglo Saxon norms would be a gross injustice. Sophistication in culture comes through an evolutionary process. Imagine the wild-west mentality of the Americans when they killed red Indians, as if they were beasts.
Pakistan and USA have exchanged intelligence on Afghanistan, not realizing that both possessed no real intelligence. In fact a blind man was leading another blind. The Angry American, has therefore good reasons to be angry, but to be blinded with rage is immaturish. America may pound countless bombs and missiles but victory is not its fate. The reliance on Northern Alliance is again a gross mistake. Like the Abrahas’ leading elephant - Mehmud (Mammoth) - that would not move forward towards the House of God, but showed its agility when allowed to run in the reverse direction, the Northern Alliance backed by the elite American Special Forces would not confront Taliban in ground combat at Mazar-e-Sharif. It is this very realization that Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has reportedly predicted the success of Taliban, and humiliation for USA. He perhaps is motivated to cash on the wedge between Taliban and Pakistan, subsequently, when the dust of military operation settles.
It is indeed paradoxical that USA, which was the torch bearer of freedom against British imperialism, has itself imbibed that very imperial legacy. It is understandable why Great Britain is so predisposed towards total compliance to USA. Perhaps it wishes to vicariously inhale power and avenge the historical humiliating defeat it encountered at the hands of Afghans in successive aggressions, during the hay days of its colonial power. America would be well advised to pause and readjust its priorities in Afghanistan and not to repeat the historical mistake. The opportunity should be seized to act like a super power with a sense of responsibility, which Providence has endowed it with. It is time to act with prudence and restraint taking into account what Afghan Shoora suggested: A dialogue must be initiated to resolve the crisis. There could be no better words of wisdom.
Afghanistan, it appears is destined to write the opening chapter of new global history - the beginning of a new history - which promotes sublime values of sovereignty and respect for all nations - big and small, and to end the unjust world order where the weak are marginalized and greed and economic piracy masquerade as strategy.
The fire of revenge in the US heart must get extinguished, if it sincerely wishes to end terrorism in this outrageously unjust world. It must try to eliminate the killing fields of Chechniya, Palestine, Afghanistan and Kashmir, which indeed are the breeding grounds for terror. Trying to eliminate terrorism elsewhere, is like chasing shadows. Churchill very rightly said: Revenge is of all satisfactions the most costly and long drawn one, retributive persecution is of all policies the most pernicious.”