Exactly a week after strikes on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, US forces detonated the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan. The attack, which came on the eve of the anniversary of strikes against Libya in 1986, is said to have involved the largest non-nuclear bomb ever designed, with the potential to wreck large scale damage. Aimed at denying ISIS operatives space, the strike on a cave network, the 21, 600-pound, GPS guided ammunition has repercussions which extended far beyond Afghanistan.
On April 14, 1986, the Libyan towns of Tripoli and Benghazi were struck by naval attack jets in the Mediterranean and by bombers based in the UK, while France had refused permission for the use of their air space, increasing the distance of air travel. Several military targets were engaged, the main being the Headquarters of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi. Killing Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, who was at his residence, the attack also injured two of his sons. Ronald Reagan addressing the nation reiterated that ‘when our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond in self-defense.’ Acknowledging that they did what they had to do, Reagan was keen to stress that ‘if necessary, we shall do it again.’
America kept to that promise. Successive US Presidents have carried out varied attacks, covert and otherwise, in different parts of the world. From January to March 2017, an estimated 235 air and drone strikes had been carried out in Afghanistan alone. Thus the point of reasoning is the effectiveness of such strikes, and their ability to crush rebellious forces. While it took another quarter of a century to get rid of Qaddafi, Benghazi entered the annals of US history following the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on September 11th, 2012. Why then have American Presidents been determined to grab international attention and fulfill the aspirations of Machiavelli.
Clinton’s much repeated election mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid,’ calling for inward looking policies to bring about change in America, may have worked in putting him into the Oval Office. Yet he went on to advocate a ‘doctrine of enlargement’ and faced massive challenges over Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. He realized the potential of the post-Cold War era and didn’t want to lose the opportunity provided. George W. Bush, having encountered the impact of September 11th, launched America into battle with guns blazing. Barack Obama despite pledging to end the wars of his predecessor went on to keep America at war for the totality of his presidency, ironically even after being awarded the Noble Peace Prize, rather prematurely in his first term. Attention and the modus operandi by which leaders have striven to attract and/or divert it, remains at the crux of international affairs. From George Washington onwards, the slogan to ‘make America great’ has been in practice, though perhaps not voiced all too often. Trump’s cry to do so ‘again’ is widely in keeping with his numerous predecessors, most of whom perfected the art of attracting and diverting attention as and when required. Emboldened by the response received after the 59 cruise missiles struck targets in Syria, Donald Trump has chosen to display the potential of America in a bid to intimidate more than destroy. The GBU-43, designed in the Bush-junior era was ready for use in 2003 but neither Bush nor Obama chose to use it. The deployment of the bomb comes in the wake of Chinese President Xi’s visit to America and Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Russia. Xi’s visit, vastly seen as an opportunity for the two leaders to ‘get to know each other,’ was overshadowed by the missile strike on Syria. Geared towards adding military muscle to the Trump administration, it vulgarly displayed its hard power potential, against a smaller and weaker state. Yet for China, which opposes intervention of any form, the attack guarantees America’s continued involvement in the region, and the opportunity for China to continue with her steady rise, bereft of such international concerns.
Rex Tillerson, a 2013 recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship, only just wrapped up his visit to Moscow, when news of the Afghan strike was released. Tillerson’s remarks in the wake of the Syrian attack that ‘either Russia has been complicit or Russia has simply been incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement,’ referring to the agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria, did not sit well with the Russians, who have insisted on an ‘objective investigation.’ Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was quick to highlight Milosevic, Saddam, Qaddafi and Bashir as examples of acting in haste, thereby questioning the motive of removing Assad.
Yes, the attack along the border with Pakistan will focus tremendous attention on Trump, the US and its military prowess. It will boost his ratings as witnessed even after the Syrian strikes, and it will send a strong message to foes, that America is not recoiling into an isolationist quagmire to wallow and watch the world go by. Yet alarmingly the attack will also be known for its hyped rhetoric rather than actual impact, making it another in a string of strikes. It will boost rebel recruitment; keep Afghanistan in a constant state of emergency; and perpetuate America’s involvement in the region.
Once again a small state falls victim to the machinations of large powers. Afghanistan, having endured the rigours of war for decades, continues to linger on the tables in many capitals. Rebel groups and their operatives, having found safe havens within its borders, have taken over control of parts of the country, rendering it inaccessible to the general citizenry. Voluntarily or otherwise, Afghanistan remains divided. As the devastation persists it remains to be seen if Afghanistan will be Trump’s Benghazi, or whether Afghans will find themselves in a divided state.
