"It's all the same. Only the names have changed" : The Great Game anew

In the week after the much-deserved execution of Osama bin Laden, I wrote a post about the state of Pakistani-American relations that upset a good number of you. My most recent ex-girlfriend went so far as to categorize my views as "appeasement."

What I'd like to point out is that my little essay was largely drawn from the modern history of the region, as opposed to the criticism of it, which wasn't.

Look, I get that everyone's all emo about possible the possible complicity of the ISI in hiding bin Laden, but I find that amusing from a country that can't find D.B Cooper within its own borders after nearly forty years of trying. Having said that, foreign policy isn't usually a tool of emo release. It's a cold study and implementation of national interest. And if you want a case of national interest, ask yourself this: "How does the United States rotate men and material into the Afghanistan without the cooperation of Pakistan?"

It's also important to remember that Pakistan's cooperation with the alleged War on Terror existed only out of fear of an American invasion, if former President Pervez Musharraf's memoir is to be believed. Musharraf went so far as to actually war-game how a military confrontation with the United States would play out before pledging his fealty. After the misadventure in Iraq, one can safely say that it'll be a good long time before the U.S invades anyone without a great deal of thought beforehand.

However, there's a great difference between avoiding a ruinous war and pursuing your national interest. Pakistan's strategic interest vis-a-vis Afghanistan is pretty simple to figure out. They want anything other than massive Indian influence in Kabul. Anything - including an actual al-Qaeda government - is preferable to that.

That might sound like a crazy thing to say until you take a closer look at the recent history of American foreign policy. The United States went to any number of seemingly insane lengths to contain Soviet influence in regions as far flung as Central America, sub-Saharan Africa and, yes, even Afghanistan itself. The Kennedy administration risked ending the world over a couple of dozen Soviet intermediate ballistic missiles in Cuba, despite the fact that the United States had stationed at least that many on the Soviet border with Turkey.

To take the current argument of the Republican caucus, Fox News and every shithead blogger known to man seriously is to suggest that America had a vital national interest in furthering a civil war in, say, Angola, but Pakistan doesn't in Afghanistan. While I guess that you can suggest such things, I should warn you that you'd look like a blathering moron doing so.

Oh, and guess what happened yesterday in Kabul?

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has pledged a further $500m to Afghanistan over the next six years.

Mr Singh made the announcement in Kabul. The money is in addition to $1.5bn already promised.

The Indian prime minister also said he strongly backs the Afghan government's efforts to reconcile with the Taliban.

His visit comes just over a week after al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden was killed by US commandos in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad.

India and Afghanistan share concerns over militant networks in Pakistan.

Correspondents say India's promise of more money is likely to raise Pakistani fears about Delhi's influence in Afghanistan. India is the biggest regional donor to the country.

"India's [total] development assistance commitment is approximately $1.5bn, but there are still gaps," Mr Singh told a joint press conference with President Hamid Karzai.

"We now have a better idea of where we can do more... We have made a fresh commitment of $500m over the next few years."

The money will be spent on agriculture, schools and roads. India is already building the new parliament in Kabul - at a cost of $19m

A new parliament building for free? Fancy! I bet that it comes without strings attached, too.

Indian diplomats say that any rapid reduction of the US presence in Afghanistan would cause them concern, because the country could become dominated by a Taliban-influenced government friendly towards its arch-rival Pakistan.

Yeah, go figure.

Delhi is playing an interesting game here. They really don't want to see a "rapid reduction of the US presence in Afghanistan," but they aren't willing to do what it takes to reach a lasting settlement with Pakistan that would make Afghanistan irrelevant to everybody.

The late Richard Holbrooke noted this when he was named Special Ambassador to Afghanistan-Pakistan in early 2009.

According to several sources, Holbrooke thought that India and Iran, which played essential roles in the regional conflict, should also be part of his portfolio. (Holbrooke denies this.) But Iran was taken away by the White House, which appointed Dennis Ross to be the special adviser on the nuclear issue and other matters, and India was taken away by the Indians, who refused to be included in an office set up for fragile states beset with Islamist insurgencies. Obama had mentioned the conflict in Kashmir twice in the weeks after the election, and the government in New Delhi “went berserk,” according to someone familiar with the situation. Holbrooke later turned the setback into a quip: he was going to get through his new job without ever uttering the “K-word.”

As I've repeated stated in this space, absent the Kashmir conflict, Indo-Pakistani tensions almost evaporate. If you resolve Kashmir as a geostrategic issue, Afghanistan becomes irrelevant in so far as neither major power would much care who governs in Kabul.

Having said that, it's at least nice to know that American foreign policy in the region is being determined by New Delhi Washington is being at the waist even more deeply than London did in the last days of colonial rule, and the results are likely to be just as disastrous.

But let's get back to the BBC report, shall we? It's fascinating.

The two leaders held discussions on Thursday about regional stability, counter-terrorism and the India-Afghanistan strategic partnership, built on what correspondents say is largely a shared mistrust of Pakistan.

The BBC's Quentin Sommerville says President Karzai's desire for talks with the Taliban has not in the past sat easy with India.

But standing by President Karzai, Manmohan Singh said he now strongly supported those discussions.

"We wish to see a peaceful, stable, democratic, pluralistic Afghanistan. We strongly support Afghan people's quest at peace and reconciliation," Mr Singh said.

"India supports firmly the unity, integrity and prosperity of Afghanistan. 

Analysts say that India may now accept that the Taliban has to be part of any political resolution to the war in Afghanistan. But it also dearly does not want its arch-rival Pakistan leading any reconciliation process, our correspondent adds.

There's only one problem with Prime Minister Singh's statement: He's lying out his ass.

A "peaceful, stable, democratic, pluralistic Afghanistan" would almost certainly be dominated by the plurality Pashtuns, which are allied with Pakistan and most sympathetic to the Taliban. Even if it wasn't, the laughable border Afghan-Pakistani border, most commonly known as the Durand Line makes it impossible. For all intents and purposes, there is no border to police.

Anyone who knows anything about anything has been driven to distraction about the constant complaints from the United States and various asshole bloggers about "Pakistan's unwillingness to control the border," which is hilarious coming as it does from the United States, resplendent as it is with tales of safety and all-around wonderfullness from its own southern border.

The fact is that no one - not the pre-colonial Indian, Persian, British or Soviet Empires were able to control that territory - but Islamabad is magically expected to, without a tenth of the resources and while being consumed by paranoia about its eastern and southern borders. The United States can't do it, and they've had a decade of uncontested air superiority with which to try.

If Manmohan Singh was all that interested in  democratic pluralism, he'd give it a shot in Kashmir. Seeing as he's specifically prohibited American policymakers from even muttering about that under their fucking breath - despite getting a cherry nuclear deal that even Israel doesn't have the stones to ask for - there's little likelihood of that happening anytime soon.

No, my friends. What we're seeing here is the beginnings of a new Great Game in Afghanistan. India will dump huge amounts of money - and eventually weaponry - into a policy of strategic encirclement with the brutishly corrupt Karzai regime, and Pakistani-supported Pashtuns will respond with mindless violence. And the United States will be forever stuck in the middle, trapped by its own cowardice and stupidity.

As much as I despise and fear quoting Bon fucking Jovi in regards to anyting relating to foreign policy "It's all the same, only the names have changed." And American troops are going to be the pawns in the new Great Game.

Have fun and don't say that I didn't warn you.



Thanks to an anonymous commenter for the BBC link.