Indian Defence Review

The recent suicide bombing killing 12 and injuring over 40 in Kunar region of Afghanistan is yet another indication of growing instability in the country. But that is not all. Presenting the ‘Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Committee’ to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on 09 February, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence had nothing bright to say about Afghanistan in 2016. 

The gist of what was presented is: Afghan government will continue to face persistent hurdles to political stability in 2016, confront larger and more divisive issues later in the year including the implementation of election reforms, long-delayed parliamentary elections, and a potential change by a Loya Jirga that might fundamentally alter Afghanistan’s constitutional order. Apart from the gloom that is expected to shroud the political scenario in the country, it has also been predicted that the Afghan government will be unable to effectively address the dire economic situation until it first contains the insurgency. It is also expected that fighting in 2016 will be more intense than the previous year and that the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) will probably maintain control of most major population centers, but will very likely cede control of some rural areas. Without international funding, the ANSF will probably not remain a cohesive or viable force. Spelling further troubles for Afghanistan could be a resurgent Taliban, which in the last few months has managed to largely coalesce around Mullah Akhtar Mansour, more so because of the two-week seizure of Kunduz last year. Taliban will continue to test the overstretched ANSF faced with problematic logistics, low morale, and weak leadership, and the Khorasan branch of ISIL comprising rebel Afghan Taliban and TTP despite quick growth in January 2015 will remain low-level threat during 2016.

Representatives of Afghanistan, China, US and Pakistan met in the Kabul recently for the fourth round of talks looking for avenues to revive the peace process. It is hoped that direct peace talks would be held with Taliban in the near future albeit a spokesperson of one Afghan Taliban group has reinforced earlier position that first the US-NATO troops must leave Afghanistan. So it is anybody’s guess in what manner would be the “direct talks with Taliban” and which representatives of Taliban will attend.

Significantly, breakdown of talks with Taliban after the first round was credited to the death of Mullah Omar, two years after he had actually died in a Karachi hospital while US scholars maintain he was ineffective in his last years. So if he was ineffective for say past 4-5 years, how was the Taliban undertaking its spring offensives? Who broke the news of Mullah Omar’s death, if not by Pakistan (timed in consultation US?). Hadn’t the Taliban already rallied under Mullah Akhtar Mansour already, beating Afghan intelligence in capturing Kunduz, even as   sources talked of a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) operative coordinating the operation from the hospital in Kunduz, which was later bombed.

Interestingly, the only reference James Clapper made about Pakistan (in his 32 page statement) is hyphenating it with India; merely saying relations between Pakistan and India remain tense following a terrorist attack on Pathankot Air Force base in India, which New Delhi blames on a Pakistani-based group, and further dialogue hinges on Pakistan’s willingness to take action against those in Pakistan linked to the attack – nothing more!

Obviously, India would have shared with the US strong evidence of Jaish-e-Mohammed’s (JeM) terror activities and role in the Pathankot attack. But then, there is hardly any pressure on Pakistan to bring perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, including Hafiz Saeed to book, despite David Headley’s recent deposition and Shuja Pasha admitting to Pakistan’s ISI role in the 26/11 terror attacks as described in the book ‘Playing to the Edge’ by Michael Hayden, former CIA Director.

Getting back to Afghanistan, Michael Hayden has expressed deep frustration at the “duplicity” of the Pakistani leadership when it came to taking action against terrorist groups. But the fact is that these games continue unabated with full knowledge of the US. James Clapper may be talking of Taliban coalescing now, which he should have talked of in retrospective. In fact, US scholars have been talking of cooperation between the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) over the past several years. Then Mullah Mansour Akhtar was obviously in control of Afghan Taliban much before or at best  coinciding with the death of Mullah Omar. But then there has never been any mention by US intelligence that Mullah Mansour is religious head of Haqqanis based in Pakistan past three decades.

Little wonder then that reports are emerging of Al Qaeda training camps resurfacing in Afghanistan. Isn’t that why Michael Hayden expresses frustration about Pakistan not taking action against terrorist groups, particularly against al-Qaida, Taliban, LeT and the Haqqani network? Clapper considers low-level ISIL threat during 2016 in Afghanistan but how did ISIL consolidate in seven districts of Nangarhar Province of Afghanistan, west of Peshawar, what is their leadership structure and what is Pakistan’s role in cobbling the so called rebels of Afghan Taliban and TTP?

That Pakistan has been arming terrorist groups in Afghanistan is without doubt. In fact, if the very recent acknowledgement by the Foreign Advisor to the Pakistani Prime Minister, Sartaj Aziz on harboring of Afghan Taliban on their side of the Durand Line, is anything to go by, it goes on to show how deep the reach of the Pakistani ‘deep state’ is in its neighboring country.

Although Pakistan through its officials has claimed that it cannot be squarely blamed responsible for all that which goes wrong in Afghanistan from time to time, but the Afghan intelligence has talked of Pakistani army regulars engaging in terror attacks in Afghanistan in conjunction other terrorist groups but the US has never talked about it. Peace talks will hardly be easy with US herself having tried to engage Taliban past several years and failed, besides bulk Taliban hardly has any liking for US or for that matter Pakistan.

For the first time, Afghan clerics gave a call for jihad against Pakistan when truck bombings in Kabul on August 7, 2015 killed 15 and wounded 400 saying, “Afghan people are Muslims and Jihad is eligible against Pakistan’s military intelligence – Inter Service Intelligence and Punjabi military; the country’s army and intelligence is directly involved in the ongoing violence and savagery in Afghanistan.” Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security (NDS) had stated the attacks were carried out by elements of the Pakistani army with the help of their mercenaries – Haqqani terrorist network. 

China sure is important and interested in stability of Afghanistan as a neighbor, but China had developed links with Taliban even before the US invasion of Afghanistan and her economic ventures in Afghanistan are not threatened. But this may not remain forever with the resurfacing of Al Qaeda and entry of ISIL in Afghanistan, which appears to be on purpose, being important players in the Great Game. Meanwhile Afghanistan has invited India to join a new regional consultative mechanism to address the critical challenges facing Afghanistan; the 6+1 group comprising India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, the US and China in addition to Afghanistan. But what needs to be watched for is the old adage that peace is unlikely to come to Afghanistan till the US and Pakistan wants it.

The present indications are that Pakistan is unlikely to change her policy of exporting terror and the US may continue to look away till it suits her national interests. Besides, China too keeps reiterating she has good counter terrorism cooperation with Pakistan; which is obvious because the insurgency in Xinjiang is maintained to desired levels of China. The irregular forces/proxies are current favourites of big powers is no surprise, having proved to be of great strategic value over the past decade plus.

Afghanistan being the bridge between Eurasia and South-Southeast Asia, growing instability in the country will have adverse effects in the entire region including the resource rich Central Asian Republics. The ISIL threat may be low-level today but don’t forget how rapidly it enlarged in Iraq-Syria. Efforts by the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) of Afghanistan, Pakistan, the US and China may not be enough by itself, as direct talks with Taliban remain elusive by present indications. Integrating the QCG with the 6+1 group, the new regional consultative mechanism comprising India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, the US and China in addition to Afghanistan may be a better bet.

Courtesy: http://southasiamonitor.org/detail.php?type=sl&nid=15874