What’s going to happen when the Americans pull out in 2014? Well … they’re not going to pull out, according to Anatol Lieven, British author, journalist and policy analyst, who addressed a select audience in Karachi on March 20. It’s just the ground troops who will be sent back. Not the cavalry. In a 45-minute analysis, places, periods and people were conjured up in depth and detail. The good news for Hamid Karzai is that Uncle Sam will keep a huge complex of military and civilian advisers in Afghanistan. The bad news for the tribal chiefs of the frontier province of Pakistan is that the drone attacks will continue. With seven best-selling books and a large number of articles to his name, 52-year-old Lieven is a scholar of formidable qualifications. He is also a jolly good speaker. When he dilated on what the political scenario is likely to be in Afghanistan and Pakistan after 2014, with the Americans maintaining a menacing presence in Kabul, the audience hung on to his every word. The absolute stillness in the hall was a tribute to a splendid lecture delivered by a man who has an abiding grip on the politics of the region.
Lieven also has a dry sense of humour and I enjoyed his quip about the extraordinary solipsism of American analysts who believe that an American withdrawal would trigger off civil war. “Well … what is happening in the country to-day?” he asked, tongue-in-cheek, “If it isn’t civil war?” Here are some of the ideas that emerged from the talk. Next year will see the breakdown of the Afghan government. Corruption in the civilian government will continue. There’s a strong chance of a takeover by a divided military with possible counter-coups. The Americans are still haunted by the images of Saigon in 1975, which an English journalist, sympathetic to the cause of the rice farmers, described as “an apocalypse of war-mongering bloodlust”. Around 30 per cent of Afghans support the Taliban. Support from inside Pakistan will not work under the Karzai regime. Americans, who are used to getting rid of their allies, are becoming more mealy-mouthed in their old age. Chances of an outright Taliban victory in Afghanistan are highly unlikely. India and Iran will undoubtedly meddle. China is concentrating more on the land routes rather than the naval lanes and is operating in a different theatre.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 25th, 2013.
COMMENTS (25)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@gp65: Extremely well done ............... :-))
@Zalmai: Thank you for taking the time to respond to my query
@Parvez: I know very little about ground reality in Afghanistan and do not feel competent to comment. Still in the learning mode. I do have an opinion about the author and Anatole Leaven's view that US will not withdraw (I disagree with that view) and I have already expressed my thought process earlier.
@Zalmaii: Dear Zalmaii, In regard to moderators I understand they have a big job separating the wheat from the chaff, but they do appear to give preference to contributors who do put-downs on Pakistan.
Anwer Mooraj sahab, westren writter lies professionally too some time we have many examples when its come to muslims.
@Anwar Mooraj
I am not going to like anything you say because it will be biased, prejudiced and dismissive like the first part of your article. You would not have quoted Anatol Lieven if you did not agree with his views but neither you nor Mr.Lieven is an authority on Afghanistan.
Ahmed Rashid along with the late Eqbal Ahmed are the only two objective and unbiased writers that I have come across when dealing with the issues of Afghanistan, the rest are spin doctors that regurgitate cliched, prejudiced and biased narratives.
@Zalmai: This was an account of a talk delivered by a distinguished British author. Nothing more or less. These are not, and I repeat, not my personal views. You wouldn't like them any way if you heard them. However, thanks for writing. A.M..
@gp65: Looking forward to your comment on @Zalmii's take on the situation.
@gp65
My take on this matter probably offended ET moderators and they chose not to publish it.
My last post mistakenly mentioned Ahmad Shah Abdali but I meant to qualify Afghan kings of the period that fought against Ranjit Singh.
@gp65
"As a very knowledgeable Afghan, I would really be interested in hearing your take on this."
Thank you for considering me knowledgeable. Here is my take on this.
Anwer Mooraj gives too much credence to Anatol Lieven's views when he should be listening to local authorities, such as the esteemed writer Ahmed Rashid who has a better understanding of Afghanistan, Pakistan and dynamic narratives that are in flux that stem from ground realities not orientalist propaganda peddled by western writers seeking to sell books to anglophones that subscribe to a flawed narrative espoused by ISPR.
Pakistani analysts are dismissive, disingenuous, condescending and compelled to portray Afghanistan as tribal, greedy, narco traffickers that are caught up in petty rivalries prone to factionalism coupled with the constant threat of its military fracturing along ethnic lines.
As I see it, the Afghan military is not going to engage in coups or counter coups and Hamid Karzai has turned Afghanistan into a modern country with strong institutions, infrastructure, a viable and sustaining economy and he will leave a legacy that can only be compared to King Amanullah Khan, the reformer who tried to modernize Afghanistan in the 1920s but the British Raj derailed and undermined his efforts because they feared him.
As far as Ahmad Shah Abdali and Ranjit Singh are concerned that is another topic for another day, but I am surprised to see a Pakistani writer conceding that their great hero was not invincible and perhaps betraying an offhanded reverence to his forebears.
@Zalmai: As a very knowledgeable Afghan, I would really be interested in hearing your ake on this.
@Faraz Kakar: Faraz sahib,
Afghanistan has been an area with a distinct identity. They are a very proud people, the Afghans. I am sure they do not like the patronizing idea of being * CONQUERED*.
Yes, they can be won over with love and honour and respect. If the regional neighbours treat Afghanistan like a backwater ,underdeveloped region , Afghans resent it.
What their society needs after 3+ decades of war and strife is to be left alone. They have to modernize, they need economic growth and peace . The common Afghans need job oportunities. They need freedom from corruption, poverty,drugs and from obscurantist ideologies.
They also need co-operative neighbours.
Nation building is not somthing that can be achieved in a decade.
If genuine PEACE is achieved , I would not mind taking up a teaching job at the KABUL UNIVERSITY.
We alll can help.
Mr. Moorarji
Your oversimplified analysis of Afghanistan betrays your contempt for Afghans. Regardless of what the Americans do, Afghanistan is not going to descend into chaos. I am sure you and a host of Pakistani analysts parroting ISPR and regurgitating stale orientalist narratives would be overjoyed to see a civil war in Afghanistan. Keep on dreaming.
Let us all ask this question to find the right answer. The question is "Why is there no violence and bloodshed in Vietnam today as it was in the 1960s". The right answer is "The European terrorists are not there any more". So when the European terrorists vacate Afghanistan as they did in Vietnam. precious PEACE will come back as it did in Vietnam.
@Faraz Kakar: Dear Faraz, You may well be right, but whilst the greatest terrorists the world has ever known are still occupying and bombing the Western part of the sub-continent I do not see any hope for peace
Post 2014, the only solution of this ongoing mess in Afghanistan is an understanding between India and Pakistan. Only these two countries can stabilize and build Afghanistan. The policy of supporting Talibans has isolated Pakistan internationally. Continuing to support them post 2014 will bring no good to Afghanistan or Pakistan. Our policy makers need to understand that the days of Ranjit Singh and Ahmed Shah Abdali are over. We live in a new world where military conquests destroy economies. Pakistan cannot afford to remain a security state. It needs to invest in education, health and welfare of its citizens. It needs to follow the example of South Korea and not North Korea. India, as well, needs to end its proxy wars and win trust of its neighbors. India needs to understand that, besides other issues, it is also its arrogant and hegemonic attitude that is pushing Pakistan towards China.
Peace is the only solution. If our policy makers set aside their historic prejudices against their neighbors and give peace a chance, the close cultural ties can bring Afghanistan, Pakistan and India into a block like France, Britain and Germany. The ideological followers of Ranjit Singh might conquer Kabul militarily yet again but they will lose again... this time on political and economic fronts. They need to understand that Kabul can be conquered in seconds without firing a single bullet, without blowing up schools and without investing in the armies of learned beards. You can conquer Kabul by love... if only you reach up to them with an unbiased and unprejudiced mindset. If only you replace the idol of Ranjit Singh in your hearts with the teaching of Data of Lahore or Ghazni or both...
@umer: It's a sad sight when you see someone be condescending, acting as if they know reality, while clearly residing in delusion. I almost want to be insulting but, knowing your delusional foothold, you'll manage to convince yourself you came out on top, just like people who think living in caves is winning.
dude come again when they withdraw ground forces.before saying anything regarding afghanistan first do some homework.do you realise how easy it will be to prolong the stay of cavalry for obama provided the situation of economy of usa today?and do u even know abt the strength of taliban evwn in the presence of ground forces?
I don't know why Pakistanis are happy.
What is the worst case scenario for Pakistan?
America not going away from Pakistan, thereby holding Taliban to the south, which consequently are the areas adjacent to the Pakistani porous border.
Now, if that happens Pakistan will lose out in 2 ways. 1) It will lose the leverage it had over the US, with the supply lines. US can threaten sanctions and can blackmail Pakistan at will of sanctions and strict action to wage war against interests which are inimical to the US. If Pakistan says no, there is no reason why US will not sanction Pakistan.
2) Pakistan said the extremism is due to the guys who fled Afghanistan and came to Pakistan and it is they who spread their ideology to Pakistan. If this is true, Taliban still concentrating their strengths on the Durand Line is the worst case scenario for Pakistan. TTP will always have a shelter under the Taliban.
I don't see any plus in this for Pakistan. Pakistan should either convince the US to stay in large numbers or go away completely so that the Taliban can take over and move out of Afghanistan. Its strange to see Pakistanis not seeing the checkmate, which is glaringly obvious.
afganistan is too juicy a location for nato to leave, probably only place from where american can watch over iran's, china's and russia's missiles launches and install listening pods with the local government's interference...
Once the Americans pull out, the Taliban will have a free hand in the tribal areas making life for Pakistan government harder. Also, cross border attacks from Afghanistan side will increase. At that point many people will realise that the war they have been proclaiming as 'not our war' was actually theirs but it was easy to pass the buck for the failure of Pakistan security agencies. Difficult days ahead, prepare for escalation in violence inflicted on unsuspecting civilians.
America has wised up - giving up on expensive civilian aid designed to "remake" Afghanistan - giving up on trying to control territory on behalf of Karsai - and focusing on what brought them to Afghan in the first place - Al Qaeda. There going to leave a small/lethal/cost effective military footprint relying primarily on drone, air-power & special forces which will prevent the Taliban from retaking Kabul or allowing sanctuary for Al Qaeda or it's clones. . USA doesn't need Pakistan's support to maintain this smaller footprint and life for Al Qaeda and it's associates in both Pakistan and Afghanistan is going to get harder since the American's are probably going to be less inclined to care about protest from either Islamabad or Kabul. The smaller footprint will also take Afghanistan off the American public radar giving the President a free hand to pursue bad guys.
Nicely explained by Anotel Lieven ( his book Pakistan a Hard Country was a great read ). The Americans have put a spin on the narrative for their public consumption, the fact that America will have a very size-able presence in Afghanistan after 2014, can not be denied.
The Americns have defined what the pull out will look like. They will still have a base. They will still have a couple of thousand 'trainers and consultants'. They will he withdrawing from combat roles. This they will do. Now Osama is gone there is no reason to stay. They are simply trying to be more systematic in their withdrawal this time compared to the last time.
nothing will happen uncle , jihadis will get more teeth once americans are away.