|
|
This is a new tactic to reduce the influence of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, and by association, others such as the Taleban. These terror groups thrive on the basis of the terror campaigns they unleash on citizens of their country, such as suicide bombings, attacks by machine-gun wielding terrorists, etc. It is difficult for the security apparatus of countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq to handle the threat of these organizations, especially since the security apparatus is either weak, or where sections share some of the beliefs of these terror organizations. If these groups are not put down, they also pose major threats to countries such as US, UK, India, and many western countries. One way to combat these groups is through direct military and police action, and there is a vigorous effort underway against these groups.
However, there are challenges in fighting such groups when there is a sympathy towards their actions by sections of the population and administration in Pakistan, and this sympathy also extends towards regular donations from wealthy individuals in countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, etc. There is a need to break this sympathy by declaring that the acts of terror carried out by such groups, and the attacking of innocent civilians is totally against the teachings and the tenets of Islam. An attempt is being made in this regard by negotiating with a group such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a much older group that was well regarded by Al-Qaeda, but which repudiated the methods used by Al-Qaeda (link to article):
From within Libya’s most secure jail a new challenge to al Qaeda is emerging. Leaders of one of the world’s most effective jihadist organizations, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), have written a new “code” for jihad. The LIFG says it now views the armed struggle it waged against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime for two decades as illegal under Islamic law.
The code’s most direct challenge to al Qaeda is this: “Jihad has ethics and morals because it is for God. That means it is forbidden to kill women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, traders and the like. Betrayal is prohibited and it is vital to keep promises and treat prisoners of war in a good way. Standing by those ethics is what distinguishes Muslims’ jihad from the wars of other nations.” The code has been circulated among some of the most respected religious scholars in the Middle East and has been given widespread backing. It is being debated by politicians in the U.S. and studied by western intelligence agencies.
Any advice by well meaning individuals from the West, as well as attempts by the governments of the Middle East to reduce the support for terrorist organizations is normally ignored. It is when scholars or even Islamic terrorists renounce the tools of terror does the fight against these terrorist organizations get joined.
The Presidential elections in Afghanistan are key to the stability of the country, and in the fight against the Taleban and foreign militants. Afghanistan and border regions of Pakistan hold the key in the fight against global terrorism, and ensuring that there is an effective Government in Afghanistan is an integral part of that battle. However, this is easier said than done, and there have been a series of bad decisions taken in the past that have made things pretty bad right now, to the extent that the Taleban, which seemed defeated in 2001, is now resurgent and is control of an increasing large section of the country.
Hamid Karzai became the President when the country was removed from the grip of the Taleban, and over a period of time, the hopes and promises from Karzai have gradually decreased, to the extent that there is now a distance between the US administration and Karzai. There is less public support for Karzai from Obama and his team, and Karzai also openly condemns the US when there is some bombing or other steps that kill civilians.
Continue reading Run off in Afghanistan polls on 7 November 2009
In the run upto to the Afghan elections and soon after the elections, there were wide-spread allegations of election fraud, of corrupt practices, and downright stealing of the election. The Afghan elections were structured that if no candidate got more than 50% of the vote, there would be a run-off to decide the final winner. Soon after the election, the current President, Hamid Karzai, declared that he was the winner by a significant margin, a claim disputed by the supporters of his challenger, the former Afghan foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah. That claim has not been settled till late, and it is of no credit to the Election Commission that it has allowed the process to continue till now. This happens at a time when the credibility of the Government is low, since it does not control an increasing larger section of the country (the resurgent Taliban is fighting in larger sections of the country), with the Government being accused of corruption and of being unable to provide effective governance, with large sections of the population claiming that they do not have basic facilities.
At such a time, the Government, and its supporters among the major powers can ill afford to have this kind of instability in the country, but the fact is that the allegations of voter fraud have served to reduce the legitimacy of Hamid Karzai, and his Government, which is also not fully supported by the United States.
Continue reading Afghan election scenario gets murkier
When people talk about Afghanistan and its history, there is unanimity that no outside country can win inside Afghanistan. The British tried it in ‘The Great Game’s in the 19th century, and they lost troops, but never looked to be in a position where they could claim that they had repressed all discontent. The Soviets tried it in the 1980′s, but they were defeated by the terrain, by the fierce Afghans (although aided by the combined weight of Saudi Arabia, the US, and Pakistan); all together, it has always been claimed that no outside force can take control of Afghanistan, and it is predicted that the same will happen to the Americans in their effort in Afghanistan.
After the 2001 WTC attacks, the US supported the Northern Alliance in their battle against the Taleban, and literally bombed the Taliban into giving up their entire occupied territory. However, after that the Americans forgot all about history. George Bush gave up the effort in Afghanistan for the war in Iraq, and the unrest in Iraq made sure that Afghanistan did not get enough troops to protect against a resurgent Taleban, there was not enough support to ensure that development of the incredibly backward regions would happen, and the combination of a weak President Karzai supported by former warlords ensured that development and reform would not happen even though it was incredibly needed.
On the other hand, the Taleban, after taking its knocks in 2001, used a strategy of getting support and medical help for its fighters in Pakistan, and slowly started assuming enough strength to attack the US soldiers.
Continue reading What will Obama do in Afghanistan ? More troops, or … ?
|
|
