Afghanistan is "no longer a war of necessity"

By Steve Hynd

The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, in an interview with the German magazine Spiegel, has said that he is no longer sure that what happens in Afghanistan is essential to the war on terrorism.

Haass: Today, things are looking even bleaker in Afghanistan. It is not at all obvious that Afghans can overcome ethnic and tribal loyalties, corruption and personal rivalries. The presidential election in August was deeply flawed. No matter who is ultimately declared the winner, this election is almost certain to leave the country even more divided.

SPIEGEL: Some administration officials have suggested that the U.S. should step up its military operations against terrorists in Pakistan, rather than sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Haass: I am sympathetic to the idea. Pakistan is more vital to the U.S. and we are starting to see progress there. There should be a greater level of economic and military support in Pakistan. Carrying out more air strikes there is an attractive idea as long as the chance of collateral damage is minimized.

SPIEGEL: President Obama often calls the war in Afghanistan a "war of necessity." It's a term he lifted from one of your books�

Haass (laughs): Please, you are getting me into trouble.

SPIEGEL: But you no longer call it a war of necessity. Why?

Haass: It was a war of necessity after the attacks of 9/11 when you had a hostile government led by Taliban in Afghanistan. Now you have an essentially friendly government in Kabul and al-Qaeda has re-established itself in Pakistan. So I am no longer sure what happens in Afghanistan is still essential to the war on terrorism. Afghanistan is thus a war of choice - Mr. Obama's war of choice. There needs to be a limit to what the United States does in Afghanistan and how long it is prepared to do it.

The notion that the U.S. is now occupying the wrong country and should be stepping up attacks on Taliban and Al Qaeda's real safe havens in Pakistan is one that's gaining a lot of currency. It's also a notion that is mostly either naive or silent about what Pakistan's reaction will be. The London Times reported yesterday:

Senior Pakistani officials in New York revealed that the US had asked to extend the drone attacks into Quetta and the province of Baluchistan.

�It wasn�t so much a threat as an understanding that if you don�t do anything, we�ll take matters into our own hands,� said one.

The problem is that while the government of President Asif Zardari is committed to wiping out terrorism, Pakistan�s powerful military does not entirely share this view.

Earlier this year there was optimism that Pakistan had turned a corner after it confronted a Taliban group that had taken over the Swat valley and moved to within 70 miles of Islamabad.

There has been tacit co-operation over the use of drones. Some are even stationed inside Pakistan, although publicly the government denounces their use.

Suspicions remain among US officials that parts of Pakistan�s military intelligence agency, the ISI, are supporting the Taliban and protecting Mullah Omar and other leaders in Quetta.

And today the ISI issued a hyperbole-laden denial:

Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy agency has categorically rejected a report saying that it was providing a safe haven to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, describing it as a "propaganda blitz against an institution which has played pivotal role in the eradication of terrorism".

The report was "ill motivated and sheer mudslinging", a senior ISI official told Online news agency.

"ISI works within a set framework and any question of providing haven to Mullah Omar or the Taliban leadership stands ruled out.

"The officers and other staff members of ISI had not only rendered sacrifices of their lives in fight against terrorism but also had played more vital role in curbing menace of terrorism than any other country of the world," the official added.

No-one believes it, though - least of all the ISI. And the London Times had an even more worrying snippet right at the end of it's report:

Western intelligence officers say Pakistan has been moving Taliban leaders to the volatile city of Karachi, where it would be impossible to strike. US officials have even discussed sending commandos to Quetta to capture or kill the Taliban chiefs before they are moved.

There's no more detail, just that bare-bones claim. But if true then it's significance cannot be under-stated. It would prove that Pakistan is a false ally and that America has been "had", still willfully looking the other way from evidence that it has been played by Pakistan - which has few national interests in common with the U.S. - just as it has been for so many years.