chaudhry javed iqbal

By Shamshad Ahmad
The writer is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.

Whatever their intent, WikiLeaks' massive disclosure of a vast array of material, ranging from tactical reports from small-unit operations to strategic analyses of the political and military situation in Afghanistan, contains a clear indictment of how, and why, the US has been fighting this endless war.

At first glance, questions arise as to the very authenticity of these reports, which have neither been verified independently nor disowned by official circles in Washington. Those who had the time and spunk to browse through the entire data are left with the mystery of who could have access to such a vast and diverse range of intelligence with enough time and resources to collect, collate and transmit it to its unauthorised recipients without detection.

But the leaked papers shed no new light on the Afghan reality. The shocking truth was known to the world all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it may be has just made the most powerful case yet for an early end to the inglorious Afghan war.

Despite the enormous details, what is revealed in WikiLeaks is of little surprise. It is not much different from what most people already knew or believed about the war in Afghanistan, which everyone, even the US and its allied Nato governments and military officials, acknowledged has not been going well. WikiLeaks' portrayal of the Afghan war shows the US as being badly caught in an unwinnable war.

The leaked reports, mostly written by soldiers and petty intelligence officers, make no new revelations, as such. However, they do provide graphic accounts of hundreds of unreported incidents involving indiscriminate, at times "accidental," killings of innocent civilians by the coalition forces in Afghanistan. The reports also contain detailed descriptions of raids carried out by a secretive American "black" special operations unit called Task Force 373 against what US officials considered "high-value insurgent and terrorist" targets. Actual victims in these secret operations were invariably non-combatant civilians, including small children.

The sum total of this whole sordid narrative is a verdict on the very legality and morality of this war. It is presented as an immoral, wicked war based on lies and deceit. This assessment is not different from a clear perception all over the world that it was a wrong war to start. Waged as the global "war on terror," it has only been a "semantic, strategic and legal perversion." In the absence of a globally acceptable definition of terrorism, it is only a method of combat. One doesn't wage a war against a method of combat without an identifiable enemy to fight against.

An increasing number of security experts, politicians and policy organisations consider the war on terror a counterproductive military process which has not only alienated the US globally but is also fuelling a pro-terrorist sentiment and helping terrorist recruitment. Even the American media now feels that this decision was a big mistake. From being a righteous war when it started, the US war on terror is no longer considered moral. It is considered a war that has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation. No wonder, the message from WikiLeaks is that the Afghan war is a "wicked" problem that must come to an end as soon as possible.

According to a study by a group of academics at New York University last year, the idea of "wicked" problems first articulated as a concept in the 1970s is applicable to the Afghan conflict. This concept denotes problems characterised by social complexity, a large number and diversity of players, a high degree of fragmentation, and contested and multiple forms of causality. Different stakeholders in a conflict beset by wicked problems fail to arrive at a common definition of the problem at hand, often because they disagree on the cause of the problem.

According to this study, the ongoing forms of conflict in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are characterised by decades of failed US policy and are classic examples of wicked problems.

The claim that fixing the security situation in South Asia is the primary need of this region for the redress of its other pressing problems is questioned by those who believe that poverty, deprivation and economic underdevelopment are the primary cause of violence, and that it these elements that need to be addressed.

In the context of South Asia, any US policies that create strategic imbalances in the region and fuel an arms race between the two nuclear-capable neighbours with an escalatory effect on their military budgets and arsenals are also no service to the peoples of the two countries. "Wicked" problems require holistic analyses that do not ignore the possible effects of changes to other elements in the system, rather than strictly linear forms of problem-solving.

Let's step back and look at the Afghan conflict dispassionately. The US forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban, nor did it make a serious effort to do so, since that would have required massive resources that even the United States doesn't have. It enlisted its Nato allies in an international coalition to fight this war, which is in its tenth year. It has been one of the costliest wars which has lasted longer than the Second World War. No wonder people in the US and the European countries are sick of this conflict and would want their troops back without delay.

President Obama has himself been saying that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Asked in an interview last year with the New York Times whether the US was winning the war in Afghanistan, he replied flatly, "No." He also indicated that Washington might be opening the door for cooperation with moderate elements among the Taliban. White House officials are now talking about seeking an "acceptable end" in Afghanistan, rather than victory.

Whatever the preferred end-goals, durable peace in Afghanistan will remain elusive unless Pakistan's legitimate security concerns in the region are addressed. Pakistan has already staked everything in support of this war and is constantly paying a heavy price in terms of violence, massive displacement, trade and production slowdown, export stagnation, investor hesitation and a worsening law and order situation. America's indifference to Pakistan's legitimate interests and sensitivities is beyond comprehension.

It is important that Pakistan, as a partner and an ally, is treated with dignity and sovereign equality. A country cannot be treated both as partner in a fight against a common enemy and a target. A coercive and, at times, accusatory and slanderous approach towards Pakistan and its armed forces and security agencies is both reprehensible and counterproductive.

Instead of continuing their blame game and using Pakistan as an easy scapegoat for their own failures in this war, the US and its allies must accept the reality that Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic importance for Pakistan. If the Soviet presence in Cuba almost triggered a nuclear war in the early 1960s, India's continued ascendancy in Afghanistan will remain a danger of no less gravity to the already volatile security environment of this nuclearised region.