Security concerns in Afghanistan
NATO has been critical of the Afghan leadership.Photo: AFP
THE United States, like others within the NATO, is quite clear that 'urgent security needs' exist in Afghanistan despite the presence of a fairly large contingent of foreign troops in that country (nearly 77,000 by last count). It is also evident that despite such an engagement, the Taliban appear to be gaining ground in most areas outside Kabul. President Barack Obama has now authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. This will include two brigades (one army and one marine) and will be the first major troops deployment, as the Obama administration reviews US policy in Afghanistan. US troop build-up in Afghanistan could in fact reach up to 60,000 troops from current levels of 38,000 in the coming months. Obama has explained that this increase is necessary "to stabilise a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction and resources it urgently requires." He has also mentioned that he made the deployment decision after a request from Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defence. This move will ensure that there are sufficient troops on the ground in time for the increase in fighting that usually comes with warmer weather. The above course of action has been welcomed by those who were losing hope in the 'war on terror.' Certain analysts have however pointed out that policy planners within the Pentagon have expressed wariness about too many soldiers in Afghanistan. They are worried and are warning that Obama will hopefully not go down the same route as former US president Lyndon Johnson did, in the other quagmire known as Vietnam. In recent weeks, US engagement in Afghanistan has seen dissatisfaction expressed overtly and also covertly about the state of governance in that war-torn country. It may be recalled that the decline in relations between the leaderships of the two countries started with a visit last year to Kabul by Joe Biden (then a Vice Presidential candidate). Media reports at that time highlighted the current Vice President's open exasperation with the Karzai team and his comments that he had not received 'straight answers' on drugs and rampant corruption in Afghanistan from President Karzai. Secretary of State Clinton has also indicated her displeasure with the situation in Afghanistan In her written statement to Congress, during her confirmation hearing, she referred to Afghanistan as a 'narco-state' that was 'plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption.' This spate of criticism was also evident in recent comments by NATO Secretary General as contained in an opinion piece published in January. He was critical about the lack of leadership in Afghanistan, laying the blame not at the feet of the Taleban but on the lack of good accountable governance. It has been a snowballing situation. It is apparent that relationship between the Karzai government and the new US administration has worsened since the Obama's inauguration. There have been a series of well-placed leaks, briefs and snubs. It has denoted that USA's support may have moved away from Karzai as far as the forthcoming Afghan presidential election is concerned. This in turn has encouraged a number of challengers to Karzai to openly jostle for American support. The USA appears to have realized that this erosion will not help matters as they stand right now. The recent visit to Kabul by Special Envoy Holbrooke as well as Speaker Pelosi has been attempts to assuage public opinion in Afghanistan and also to find new directions. These visits have taken place against the backdrop of President Karzai holding a series of confidential meetings with former Mujahedeen commanders. There has also been the suggestion that Karzai wants to display some independence from the USA and is making overtures towards greater alignment with Russia. There was the deliberately leaked 'letter of understanding' with Moscow and Karzai's observation that unless America supplied Afghanistan with the military hardware it wanted, Karzai would look to other countries for support. This was obviously music in the ears of Russian Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, on his second posting to Afghanistan. In recent months, President Karzai has been trying to assert his role within his country. This has made things that much more sensitive for his partners. He has already sent a document to NATO outlining 'new rules of engagement.' It is generally agreed that if this is implemented, then it 'might substantially alter the mandate for foreign forces in that country. At this point of time, there is still not real schism between Kabul and Washington, but both sides are being careful and wary about future steps. NATO Defence Ministers, during their last meeting in Poland have suggested more dialogue given the evolving complexity of the security situation within Afghanistan and in the bordering regions with Pakistan. The security paradigm has also become a source of domestic debate with the recent announcement by the United Nations that the number of civilians killed in the conflict had risen by 39 per cent last year. Militants were apparently to blame for 55 per cent of the 2,118 civilian deaths, while US, NATO and Afghan forces were responsible for 38 per cent. This number was the highest for year-on-year since the Taliban were ousted in 2001. Quite understandably, such figures are becoming a source of increasing friction and anxiety. All partners in the war on terror accordingly recognise that the dynamics regarding the war has been affected by the growing civilian casualties in that country. They are worried that losing the trust of the people might eventually impact on future strategic operations. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has in fact warned that the United States risks losing its war in Afghanistan because of mounting civilian casualties in operations by US and NATO-led forces. He has also noted that 'until we prove capable, with the help of our allies and Afghan partners, of safeguarding the population, we will never know a peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan.' The situation is difficult. There are many clouds on the horizon. Nevertheless, Obama appears to have instinctively addressed the core issues within the matrix. He has criticized the Afghan government but has also reiterated that Afghanistan remains "winnable" despite a rise in deadly attacks by Taliban fighters. I am willing to share his opinion because he understands that force alone with not guarantee victory. Talking to CBC Obama has gone on record that the coalition partners will 'have to use diplomacy' and also the tools of 'development.' It is this last approach that needs to be undertaken with great seriousness. It is vital that there is decentralization of governance as well as greater scope for economic opportunities (through micro-credit extension) and employment generation outside the closed confine of Kabul. These steps will affect regeneration positively. It will also enhance the stakes for the population in the hinterland and make them more pro-active in the maintenance of security. Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador and can reached at mzamir@dhaka.net
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments