ShareThis Page
Loose lips sink ships |

Loose lips sink ships

Arnaud de Borchgrave
| Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:00 a.m


The U.S. high command in Afghanistan has evidently decided to inform Taliban chieftain Mullah Omar of military action plans before U.S. and allied forces leave in 2014 — if not sooner.

The last major offensive of the Afghan war is to begin later this year in eastern Afghanistan, U.S. officials in Kabul and Washington told the National Journal, along with “an array of details about the coming push, which represents a high-stakes — and politically complicated — attempt to better secure Kabul as well as Afghanistan’s porous border with Pakistan before the American exit from the country accelerates.”

Fascinating though this must be to Mullah Omar in his secret lair in Baluchistan, protected as he presumably is by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, there is even better news for him from Pakistan.

On Thursday, Pakistan’s Parliament voted a new set of guidelines for relations with the U.S., NATO and the International Security Assistance Force, and foreign policy in general. All music to Mullah Omar’s ears.

First, all military attacks on, incursions into or transportation of arms to Afghanistan through Pakistan territory must end. Overt or covert action and the establishment of any foreign bases in Pakistan are prohibited.

The Pakistani Parliament also decided it was time for Pakistan to move away from its alliance with the U.S. New guidelines call for strengthening the country’s strategic partnerships with China, Russia, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Gulf Cooperation Council and for pursuing full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — China’s answer to NATO.

Pakistani parliamentarians told the government to actively pursue a natural gas pipeline with Iran.

Unforeseen geopolitical pressures are edging the U.S. and its allies closer to the exit gates.

Navy Cmdr. Brook DeWalt, the spokesman for Marine Corps Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, is quoted as saying the overall goals of the campaign in eastern Afghanistan will be “for the forces to focus on an expanded Kabul security perimeter, the link between Kabul and Kandahar, and the border areas.”

The prestigious Council of Foreign Relations has circulated an article by Micah Zenko that reports a two-part question circulated throughout the Pentagon: Can the United States win in Afghanistan• Will the United States win in Afghanistan?

While roughly half said they thought the U.S. could win in Afghanistan, “almost nobody believed that it would.”

Zenko adds that “this disconnect has created an uncomfortable situation where some of the people who design, refine, and implement U.S. strategy in Afghanistan simply do not believe it will ultimately succeed.”

The American people — or at least 70 percent of those polled — want out of Afghanistan. Yet Allen, the ISAF commander, recently told the House Armed Services Committee, “I am confident that we will prevail in this endeavor.”

Clearly, Allen couldn’t say he doubted the U.S. would prevail without triggering a rush for the exits. Besides, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has already proclaimed that “In Afghanistan … the level of violence has gone down. … We’ve seen the Taliban weakened so that they’ve been unable to establish and organize efforts. … The bottom line is it’s working.”

Mullah Omar presumably reads the geopolitical tea leaves differently. They say as long as he retains the clandestine support of Pakistan’s ISI and as long as the number of opponents to the war keeps growing in America and in the 44 nations that back the ISAF effort, he can afford to order his fighters to lie low until most foreign troops have left.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor-at-large of The Washington Times and United Press International.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.