Omar Abdullah jittery about a ‘third front’ in J&K

There have been a number of political...

West Delhi in limelight as Mahabal set for LS battle

Both candidates have been in politics for...

Biden, Merkel, please act on human rights

opinionBiden, Merkel, please act on human rights

What is needed by the desperate Afghans resisting a cruel medieval force is combat support.

Perhaps because of the generosity of the Wahhabi interests that continue to remain prominent funders of US politicians, it comes as no surprise that so many top policymakers carry out so many of the wishes of the Wahhabi International. Senator Lindsey Graham, to give just a single instance, is close to Qatar, a sheikhdom whose ruling family continues to follow the self-destructive policy of refusing to change from backing the Wahhabi to the moderate track in the manner that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are doing.The UAE for a long time, the Saudis after Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was appointed by King Salman bin Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia. The monarch was aware that the policy of appeasement of Wahhabism that the Al Sauds had followed for centuries was destructive to the future of the Kingdom, and jumped over the heads of several relatives to choose a young royal as the Crown Prince. Not surprisingly, this decision has not gone down well with several closer to the King’s generation within the Saudi royal family, some of whom have been friends with those who traduce the Crown Prince in Atlantic Alliance media. Such media is a unique amalgam where a journalist with hardly any knowledge and experience of the evolving complexities of the Middle East becomes an instant expert on television or in newspapers. Small wonder that they failed to understand the serial errors made by US policymakers in battlegrounds such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. In each of these, the situation is much worse than when NATO ground forces entered, which is why it is a correct decision for Biden to withdraw ground forces from the region, although it is wrong to cut off adequate weapons supplies and air support to the national armies supporting the moderate governments against extremists out to bring in Taliban style rule in the countries they infest. In Libya and Syria, Atlantic Alliance journalists (barring a handful) were unable to comprehend that the “moderate freedom fighters” that were being armed and trained by countries that ought to have known better, regularly migrate to ISIS and other extremist formations, returning every now and again to the role of “moderate freedom fighters” so that they could secure enough weapons, supplies and money to continue the struggle to establish an extremist state that oppresses women, destroys the future of children, and goes after moderate Sunnis as well as Shia, a group that they see as the worst possible and which they feel needs to be harshly dealt with. In Iraq, Alliance media uniformly oppose the elected government in Baghdad, pointing to the corruption that is certainly present, without stopping to ask how many contractors from both sides of the Atlantic have made fortunes in such battlefields charging extortionate prices for shoddy services. Or how little of the trillions spent in such wars gets used for the welfare of the common people, and how much is spent on the luxurious logistics which accompany NATO troop deployments. The sooner such ground forces leave the country that they are in, the better. All that is needed is what was done by the US in Afghanistan during 2001-03, which was to provide air, logistical and data support to local forces that are almost always more than sufficient to take on and defeat the extremists. Provided that these not be helped by non-NATO allies of the US such as Pakistan, as the Taliban have been from the start. Thus far, this understanding of the true game plan of the Pakistan army has not dawned on NATO. For decades, the PRC has been rising as a force multiplier for the Pakistan army, and is today its biggest benefactor by far.
Among the biggest mistakes of the George W. Bush administration was not the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was necessary to take out the Saddam dictatorship, but the “nation building” under Paul Bremer and others that came afterwards. A similar process was initiated in Afghanistan using individuals such as Zalmay Khalilzad, who passes off as an expert on Afghanistan because it is the country of his birth, and has been instrumental in persuading President Donald Trump and his successor to carry out the same policy that he assisted in making a reality in 1996, installing the Taliban in power at Kabul. Recent statements by Khalilzad containing faint words of condemnation from him are as sincere as the recent “stern warning” of President R.T. Erdogan to the Taliban. Both men have backed the Taliban and continue to do so. Erdogan would like to use Turkish troops to “secure the Kabul airport”. This would place that essential facility for the US and Afghan governments in the hands of a leader who has long opposed both and who has from the start favoured the disastrous policy of once again backing the Taliban, in the manner that Bill Clinton did during his presidency. The Clintons constantly preach about how important it is to protect the rights of women. As President of the US, Bill Clinton must surely have been aware of the attitude of the Taliban towards women and the young, and towards education and moderates and minorities. Despite this, he stood by Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel as she went about installing the Taliban in Kabul, something that is being sought to be repeated in 2021 including by several close to President Biden. They speak of an “Afghan solution” and the need for a “compromise government”. The Taliban will enter the government only to destroy it from within in the manner Hitler did to the German government upon taking over as Reichskanzler in 1933. Whether it be Zalmay Khalilzad or the others who in effect back Wahhabi groups against the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are moderate and who seek to modernise, they fail to see the incongruity between their words and their actions. Those calling for the insertion of the Taliban in Kabul or anywhere else in Afghanistan have shown by their contempt for the Afghan people. Otherwise they would not be following a course of action that empowers enemies of modernity and moderation at the expense of the broader society in the countries afflicted by the consequences of flawed Atlanticist policy.

Angela Merkel

Chancellor Angela Merkel claims to love and support the women of Afghanistan, as do so many others in high positions. How much help in the form of logistics and air support has the German leader left behind in Afghanistan after (correctly) pulling out all ground forces? Trillions get spent on maintaining such ground forces, that will be saved. If Angela Merkel seeks to assist in the rescue of the women in Afghanistan whose cause she has been so volubly championing, she would ensure that the Afghan National Army and the self-defence groups of citizens that have been formed in territory overrun by the Taliban would get abundant combat supplies. Otherwise her words remain just that, words. The same goes for Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson. What is needed by desperate Afghans resisting the onslaught of a cruel medieval force against their rights and their lives is combat support. These groups, as well as the Afghan National Army, need weapons, air support and logistical help, the costs of which will be far less than what would be needed to beat back the extremist waves that are even in the present planning attacks on the “Crusader” countries.
Women in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere need to be supported, as do children and moderates elsewhere who seek to modernise. Those opposing this should no longer be assisted in any form, for it is those standing against them that need help. President Clinton created the conditions for 9/11 by his decision to back the Taliban. Donald Trump will go down in history as the betrayer of the Kurds and the Afghans. President Biden needs to avoid the same fate as Clinton brought on, by backing away from the havoc that Trump and his destructive policies have caused in Afghanistan.

- Advertisement -

Check out our other content

Check out other tags:

Most Popular Articles