In a diary I wrote a while ago, I attempted to take a look at the history of Afghanistan in the context of the modern conflict in the country today. This has largely become the ‘forgotten war’ in America and abroad, and I think it is absolutely a travesty that more attention is not being given to the rapidly deteriorating situation in the country. We must be aware of the Afghan conflict, not just because it represents the dangers and difficulties of the Bush Doctrine abroad, but more importantly because our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, are currently fighting there today against an enemy that has become strengthened over the last few years.
The next phase of the battle for Afghanistan began today.
From the Associated Press:
NATO took command of southern Afghanistan from the United States on Monday, and the new commander of the push to pacify the insurgency-wracked region vowed that he would not fail millions of Afghans seeking peace and stability.
An American soldier holding the flag of the U.S.-led coalition walked out of a tent shading U.S., European and Afghan officials from the baking sun, and was replaced by a soldier with the banner of the new NATO-led force.
U.S. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry transferred command to British Lt. Gen. David Richards, telling the audience at the dusty airfield outside the main southern city of Kandahar that, “The United States will not leave Afghanistan until the Afghan people tell us the job is done.”
For those who aren’t aware, southern Afghanistan was where the Taliban fled after the invasion of US-led forces, and it is here that they have reorganized and mounted their renewed attacks on the international forces, and the Afghan people.
The ceremony took place against a backdrop of continued violence. A bomb blast intended for a provincial governor killed eight people at a mosque service. And officials said that more than 30 Taliban had been killed in clashes Sunday, most in southern provinces where NATO has taken command
About 8,000 mostly British, Canadian and Dutch troops have deployed in southern Afghanistan as NATO’s International Security Assistance Force expands its presence from the more stable north and west of the country.
The mission is considered the most dangerous and challenging in the Western alliance’s 57-year history. It coincides with the deadliest upsurge in fighting in Afghanistan since late 2001 that has killed hundreds of people – mostly militants – since May.
“Those few thousand who oppose the vast majority of Afghan people and their democratically elected government should note this historic day and should understand they will not be allowed to succeed,” Richards said.
Taliban-led rebels have stepped up attacks this year, sparking the bloodiest fighting in over four years and threatening Afghanistan’s slow reconstruction and democratic reform after a quarter-century of war.
The insurgents have escalated roadside bombings and suicide attacks, mounting brazen attacks on several small towns and district police stations – a tactic rarely seen in the previous four years.
Now, ignoring the obvious lack of sanity in declaring that only a ‘few thousand’ individuals are keeping Afghanistan from a stable, fully-functioning democracy, the key portion of the piece comes with that final admission: The Taliban forces are evolving.
Why is this important? The answer is that amidst the car bombs and other attacks occurring on a daily basis, coalition forces are beginning to notice that the rebel groups in Afghanistan are very quickly coming to resemble another force in a nearby country: Iraq.
Paul Moorcraft is the director of the Centre for Foreign Policy Analysis, in London. He operated in the 80s with Afghan fighters in their struggle against the Soviets, and has continued to serve with the British since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. He has this to say:
IRAN is now challenging US power in the whole Middle East, partly to distract international attention from its nuclear weapons programme. Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy, has taken over the so-called Arab Street, because it has dared to fight the Jewish state — even though 90% of Muslims are Sunni. Arab leaders in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt detest this advance in power by Iran, a traditional enemy, but cannot be seen to side too overtly with the US.
Iran’s involvement in Iraq has been well chronicled. Meanwhile, the world has largely missed Iran’s long-term meddling in Afghanistan. Tehran has spent a long time snuggling up to the warlords, especially in the west of the country. The war in Lebanon may be enough for Tehran now, but it could soon activate its Afghan allies. After the quagmire of Iraq, Tehran reckons that the west has little stomach for another long war in Afghanistan.
“The Americans may have all the wristwatches, but we have all the time.” This is the Taliban message to the people of southern Afghanistan.
When I first read this, I instantly thought that Moorcraft’s line of thought would invariably lead to a Western attack on Iran. Rather, he appears to have some other thoughts for how the US should deal with the conflict in Afghanistan. First, some background on the conflict:
The recent combat deaths of six British troops indicated an increase in the tempo of the southern war. The Taliban had been staging a big comeback since 2003. Both the armed fighters of the Taliban and the ordinary Afghan peasants with AKs have become increasingly hostile to the occupation, which they portray as an insult to Allah. They are also incensed by heavy-handed US counterinsurgency tactics, which often have involved accidentally wiping out wedding parties and civilian convoys. This anger is also widespread across the borders in Pakistan, particularly in the completely lawless tribal areas which snake for 2400km between the two countries. This is where — most likely — Osama bin Laden and his high command are based.
So is Afghanistan going the way of Iraq? Maybe not. Iraq is certainly a lost war. And the Taliban insurgents are copying Iraqi tactics, including suicide attacks, previously avoided by the more cautious Afghans.
Afghanistan may well be ungovernable — by any Afghans in Kabul, let alone foreign troops. Nevertheless, there has been some progress. As US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it during his recent visit: “Today the al-Qaeda terrorist training camps have been shut down … soccer stadiums are being used for soccer instead of executions.” New schools, even for girls, have opened, and the economy has improved, but this is largely restricted to Kabul, almost a statelet of its own, crammed with shiny 4x4s of the nongovernmental organisations (NGOs).
Iraq has descended into the sectarian hell of Shia vs Sunni. In Afghanistan, the internal conflict is within the largest Sunni ethnic group, the Pashtuns: between the antiwestern fundamentalist Pashtuns (many of whom live in Pakistan or the adjoining tribal areas) and the pro-western, slightly less fundamentalist Pashtuns who dominate government and security forces in Kabul. The modernising tendency is symbolised by President Hamid Karzai.
Afghans cannot be bought, merely hired for a while. That’s the way Kabul has dealt with the tribal warlords for centuries. Karzai’s writ extends mainly to the area around the capital, currently guarded by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), commanded by the British. ISAF guards the numerous United Nations and NGO outposts. Karzai’s grip is weakening. This has been demonstrated by his increasing reliance on the old militias of the warlords, though they have been politely called “community police”.
For a more visual representation of the lack of control the US-approved government has in Afghanistan, take a look at this map:
The blue region, (and by region, I mean over-ambitious dot), represents the direct area of Karzai-government control, which is largely due to the heavy US presence in the region. This is by no means a secure and stable country, and the stability larely depends upon the whim of the tribal warlords.
Like Iraq, Afghanistan’s fate may be dictated by its neighbours. Not just Iran, which is buying up favours with Afghan warlords as a backstop should Washington attack Tehran because of its nuclear ambitions. Next-door Pakistan has partly aided the Americans in the fight against al-Qaeda forces, but Pakistani military and intelligence links with the Taliban go deep. Little has been done to stop cross-border tribal support.
Internally, too, the coalition has taken its eye off the ball. For nearly five years there has been no western military presence in three of the four provinces in southern Afghanistan that comprise the Taliban heartland. This has been bandit country for Kabul’s rulers for decades.
These have been failures that the media has largely turned a blind eye to. The dramatic increase in Taliban attacks has received little coverage, and while it is understandable that the current crisis in the Middle East and the continuing violence in Iraq have received great attention, there is no reason that the degeneration of Afghanistan should be ignored. We owe more to our troops, and we owe more to the Afghan people.
Solutions, unfortunately, will not come with simple media coverage however. Like other areas of US involvement abroad, this conflict will require a complete change in tactics. Moorcraft offers his thoughts:
So what should be done?
Co-ordinate the military campaigns. There have been two command structures. One was supposed to be for training and reconstruction, led by the British. Meanwhile, the Americans were fighting an aggressive military campaign along the borders to flush out al-Qaeda. There was also a separate southern command led by a Canadian general. The various North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) contributing forces also had varying rules of engagement — allegedly 71 differences. Some of the Nato contributors regard this war as another US mess, and don’t want their troops to be much more than the armed wing of Oxfam.
In the next few months this fiasco will be ended by establishing one central command, under a British general — Lt-Gen David Richards, though he recently described the country as “close to anarchy”. Troop strengths will increase as all the Nato forces, including the Americans, come under Richards’ command. In theory, the total of Nato troops should be 15000 — tiny, compared with the 135000 US troops in north-central Iraq. British troops will also get more helicopters and armoured vehicles that can withstand improvised explosive devices.
At the strategic level, the coalition should work with — not against — the Iranians, despite the deadly provocations in Lebanon. This will help Iraq and Afghanistan. Pakistan is playing both sides against the centre. Without western military and economic aid, Pakistan would collapse. It is facing an India increasingly hostile to Islamic extremism after the devastating train attacks in Mumbai. Islamabad must be told in no uncertain terms that it must rein in cross-border aid to the Taliban. The British army could barely monitor the 134km border with the Irish republic; for 2 400km of rugged terrain, Nato troops need a lot of local help.
Military commanders should be allowed to do more construction work: roads, schools and water pipes, despite complaints from humanitarian agencies. Afghans see little or no improvements in their lives; they want experts who can put in water pipes, not preach gender politics.
This is a key change that Washington will never discuss: Work with Iran. While the Bush Doctrine dictates a binary discussion of good versus bad in the region, the reality of the situation is such that we must engage Iran in a dialogue if we are to stop the flow of arms and anger into the regions we are occupying in the Middle East. This is about winning the war fo public image, which Bush surrendered without a fight from the beginning.
The British have done well with provincial reconstruction teams in the north. In the south there can be no reconstruction without security. British-led hearts and minds campaigns can win, while US-style air strikes and artillery will create another Iraq.
The west deserted Afghanistan in 1989 when the Russian enemy quit. For the war-devastated people of Afghanistan, for the reputation of Nato and perhaps to avoid a defeat in the long war against Islamic extremism, the west needs to finally get things right, not just in Kabul, but in the whole of that noble, sad country. Even if Washington has to cut a deal with Iran to achieve that goal.
Amongst the chaos of the region, and the pain and suffering of people throughout the Middle East, the US must realize that all of these conflicts are connected. We cannot build schools in the Afghan capital, and bomb Tehran, without expecting the two to invariably have an effect on each other. This is the model of foreign policy this administration has rejected, but it is the only way to truly approach stability and peace.
So please, do not forget those struggling in Afghanistan. They fight a battle as important and difficult as any, and the lives of millions hang in the balance, including those of our troops. This is too important to push to the backburner in the face of more publicized and far-reaching conflicts.
(Originally posted at Deny My Freedom and cross posted at My Left Wing)
