Lessons from Baghdad
 

[CENTER][B][SIZE="5"]Lessons from Baghdad[/SIZE][/B]
[B]Aasim Zafar Khan[/B][/CENTER]

Iraq is unravelling faster than a cheap sweater. Within nearly two years of the US withdrawal, the security situation in the country has gone to pot, with a major civil war underway, bloodied red in sectarian hate. Recently, over 60 people were killed in bombings and shootings in the capital Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul.

The dramatic increase in violence has killed nearly 650 people in October, and over 5,300 in the year so far. Apart from the civilian death toll, Iraq is fast becoming a haven for Al-Qaeda affiliates, who are not only attacking the Shia population, but also killing members of the Sunni population who had banded together to defeat the militants in 2008. These AQ affiliates are also crossing over into Syria to partake in the sectarian conflict which has been raging there since the middle of 2011.

The US withdrew all combat troops from Iraq after the Obama administration and the Maliki government were unable to reach an agreement on a US demand that their military personnel be granted full immunity from criminal prosecution under Iraqi laws. Maliki didn’t budge, the US yanked out all combat troops, and the rest, as they say, is history. Two years on, in an ironic twist of fate, Maliki has gone back to Washington, seeking military assistance in tackling the violence in his backyard.

The American response to Maliki’s plea has been lukewarm, commenting on the resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the country, but saying nothing about the arms requested by Baghdad. The truth is that Maliki’s track record at home is not very inspiring, with violent crackdowns against Sunni and Kurdish leaders.

But to be honest, the US had become weary of their presence in Iraq. Even while Washington and Baghdad were debating continued American presence in the country, back in the US there was a discord on the actual number of troops to be left behind. US commanders had suggested leaving between 15,000 to 20,000 troops, a number high enough to provide back up to the Iraqi national army – Obama, facing pressure at home to bring the boys back from a war with no meaning, didn’t want to send more than a few thousand. Iraqi politicians saw Obama’s figure as ineffectual and largely symbolic and not worth the trouble. Hence Maliki did not budge.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in similar waters. A deal on continued American military presence in Afghanistan post-2014 hinges on the issue of jurisdiction and criminal prosecution, with Washington seeking full immunity from Afghan laws. Karzai, like Maliki, has refused to budge, and this defiance has pushed the zero option Kabul to the forefront. However, Karzai, being the master negotiator that he is, has thrown the final decision on the issue of immunity to the Loya Jirga, which is scheduled to convene mid-November.

In the same vein, there is a discord on the actual number of US military personnel to be left behind, if the matter of jurisdiction and criminal prosecution is somehow managed. Obama is willing to leave between 5,000 and 8,000 troops, whereas General Jim Mattis, former commander of Central Command puts the requirement to above 13,000. Even the general’s figure is seen by military experts as being the minimum required to maintain whatever progress has been achieved in the region.

Like Maliki in Iraq, the future of continued US military presence in Afghanistan depends on Karzai. He is in a position to influence the Loya Jirga and must look at the current situation in Baghdad before pushing for yay or nay. However, much like in the Iraqi example, the final decision will weigh the possible effectiveness of the residual force and the political fallout if they’re allowed to stay.

Sceptics say that the positives of continued US military presence in Afghanistan are overestimated, but it cannot be denied that intelligence sharing, emergency backup, military trainers and the like would make a great difference in the battle against militants.

The real question, however, is: why should anyone sitting in Pakistan, or in any country apart from Afghanistan, propose the continued presence of US military personnel in Afghanistan?

There can only be one answer: Al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda has sprung back from the dead in Iraq, and is a frontrunner in the daily carnage underway in Syria. It has strongholds in Yemen and Libya as well. Allowing the same to happen in Afghanistan would be completely contrary to President Obama’s aim to ‘disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda. To be honest, Al-Qaeda will share the Taliban’s soon-to-be-achieved glory of defeating the US. And this directly affects Pakistan. Al-Qaeda’s ties with the Haqqani network, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi are well-documented, and its resurgence can only mean more trouble in our own backyard.

Whose fault is it? Washington’s obviously. But more specifically, President Barack Obama. His electoral campaigns always revolved around ‘ending the wars’ and ‘bringing our boys back home’, but what about the mess the boys always leave behind? Who’s going to clean that? President Obama may be getting a beating at home on his healthcare reforms, but here in South Asia, what we may end up witnessing is yet another American administration pursuing short-term political interests, with apparently little or no regard for its long-term ramifications.

The US has done to Iraq what it did to Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat in 1989. A repeat performance is on the cards yet again. Its ramifications will be much worse than the first time they left this region high and dry.

The writer is a media consultant and trainer.
He tweets @aasimzkhan
Email: [email]aasimzk@gmail.com[/email]

[url]http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-213208-Lessons-from-Baghdad[/url]