What Solution in Afghanistan?
Hassan Haidar Al Hayat - 07/02/08//
It is a real dilemma that the US-led NATO and almost the entire world face in Afghanistan. For various reasons, the NATO member states are struggling to reinforce their forces there to the extent desired by the US in order to confront the increasing Taliban attacks, especially in the south. At the same time, they cannot stand by while the radical fanatic movement expands and threatens threaten neighboring Pakistan where a nuclear arsenal is a source of anxiety.
Two days ago, the "International Institute for Strategic Studies" (IISS) presented a gloomy assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, warning that the country may degenerate into a collapsing and helpless state, hence a fertile ground for radicalism and a safe haven for terrorist organizations. The Institute regretted NATO's failure to offer solutions to the problems there and the catastrophic repercussions of this failure on neighboring countries.
With the help of Britain which already deploys about eight thousand troops in Afghanistan, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is trying to convince allies to increase their commitments and to save NATO from the failure of its first major operation on the global level, a failure that may be inevitable if the current rate of confrontations persists and if nothing is done to establish stability and cement President Karzai's rule.
Yet, the states that sided by the US following the September 11 attacks and agreed to send troops to Afghanistan cannot endlessly stay involved in an open war without a clear plan, a specific time table, or long term plans while their soldiers are slaughtered and sent back home in coffins where the press and the oppositions await. Such was Canada's stance which warned Washington and London that it would end its mission in Afghanistan unless NATO reinforced its forces in the southern part of the country. The US responded by promising to send more marines and urging other states, including Germany and France, to send more troops.
For its own domestic political reasons, Berlin adamantly refused to deploy its forces outside their current positions in Kabul and northern Afghanistan. It also asserted that it would only dispatch troops to the south under extremely exceptional circumstances and for a limited period of time. Paris, on the other hand, expressed serious reservations over further involvement without a comprehensive strategy to manage the affairs of the troubled country.
Why does the battle seem so futile in Afghanistan? Is it because the situation there resembles an ailing patient who cannot respond to medication because the medicine itself is defective? The US waged a swift war on the Taliban regime which collapsed in no time in the face of the advanced military American machine. However, those who planned the war committed a grave error when they considered this war an "easy" station on the road to the bigger and more difficult target in Iraq. This is why the US did not put its military weight in Afghanistan, deploy sufficient troops to completely wipe the Taliban out, or allocate sufficient funds to resolve the economic, social and political conditions that had enabled the radical movement to establish its regime in the first place. On the contrary, the US preferred to rapidly deploy its troops to Iraq where for the past five years it has been bogged down in endless confrontations and breeding civil wars that have worn its army out and drained its treasury.
With the damage already done, the situation in Afghanistan is at risk of getting out of control. Will the Americans and NATO arrive at an effective strategy in time to revive the prospects of getting this country out of the cycle of violence, particularly through reinforcing the local authorities and assisting them to combat illiteracy and opium, and to gradually break with the deeply rooted tribal and ethnic mentalities?
Afghanistan is running out of time and Taliban is relentless, always finding fresh support in the confusion and division of its enemies and in the support it gets from those betting on the failure of the US in the entire region. If the Americans fail to convince their allies that they are serious about resolving the situation there with a feasible plan, they too may be forced to withdraw and let things get out of control to crush any hopes for change.
|
