My take on Afghanistan – Part 18: One side effect of the current game and a probable scenario that will or could emerge from it may be the following: The war continues and innocent as well as not so innocent people continue to die. The open negotiations drag and achieve only “limited success” like prisoners’ exchange. Then the presidential election hype takes over and all is postponed until after the election results are known. In the meantime the game is played under the radar screen and different various outcomes have been agreed to with different entities. Before the elections – among them an understanding between the current so called “armed” and “unarmed” oppositions. The elections take place and a new president is elected and recognized by the international community. Karzai and his team that put so much emphasis on national sovereignty are no more in the game. The new president is not from Karzai’s mindset and promises to change the constitution as is demanded both by Taliban and Northern Alliance. As a result a weak central government is established and the country is run as provincial and zonal fiefdoms. The south is run by one coalition of entities having strong ties one group of neighbors. The north is run by another coalition of entities that has strong ties with another group of neighbors. The central government declares that sooner or later they are going to unite the whole country under a strong central authority to appease the supporters of this idea. All groups issue their own manifestos for the future of the whole country to be implemented when conditions are favourable. The coalition running the north agrees to allow foreign basis in their part of the country and the coalition in the south refuses to do so. Four basis instead of nine are agreed upon ( Bagram, Mazar, Shindad and Takhar). Everyone declares victory and put the blame of prolonging the conflict this long on those who are no more part of the game. Then the game will shift to a new gear….. Perhaps all this is in line with what was written in the “United States and Asia” to which I referred to in Part 11 of my postings in this series. It will also go a long way towards implementing what was written in the June 2006 issue of US Armed Forces Journal about the current and future borders of some countries in that part of the world. See armedforcesjournal/2006/06/1833899 This will also be in line with what General Tommy Franks told a US Congressional hearing during the “liberation” or “occupation” of Iraq keeping that what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan will safeguard their interests for the next 200 years. As such the area will be stable enough to extract resources for use by others and volatile enough to prevent progress in terms of people’s aspiration for an independent destiny and a bright, sovereign future. Perhaps some pieces in this chess game understood this and had aspired to become players and to refuse to go along with the rules. The Real Players are now arranging the game in time and space so that these newbie’s are shown the exit door. I pray that this scenario will utterly fail and I will be proven wrong; and Afghans will have a real chance to determine their destiny. On the other hand what I had read a long time ago comes to mind. While in Beirut in the 1970’s, I came across a book called “The Game of Nations: The Amorality of Power Politics” by Miles Copeland. In the beginning (preface?) of the book, Zakaria Mohayuddin a Vice President to Jamal Abdul Nasser had said something along the line that in the game of nations when you can’t change the game, you changed the player. The game has become too complex and maybe some are looking forward to change the players. More in part 19……
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 23:01:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015