October 6, 2011
Francis Matthew, Editor at Large
Nato cannot show much for a decade of Afghan war
The country faces an uncertain future after foreign troops pull out, when tribal and militia forces will fight for larger share of power
This weekend is the sad 10th anniversary of Nato's invasion of Afghanistan, but the terrible truth is that all the killing and political turmoil have failed to offer Afghanistan a better future. Instead, that poor country faces a very uncertain time as Nato forces prepare to withdraw, leaving the warlords (or regional governors) and the Afghan government to try to find some kind of new balance of power.
Afghanistan's two-to-five-year outlook has to be of continuing disintegration because the process of rebalancing will not be done by peaceful conversations, but by militia and tribal forces fighting to take control of what they can. There is little reason to see why the central government should succeed, nor why Nato (or anyone else) should commit to staying and enforcing security all over the country
The Nato military operation has not been a great success, and there is little to show for the appalling cost in both money and lives. It is true that the Taliban government was toppled in a matter of a few weeks in 2001, but the hopeless confusion for the next 10 years has meant that in 2011, the American-led coalition still has more than 154,000 troops stationed in the country, and the fighting is as fierce as ever, with little prospect of a negotiated peace emerging.
The security situation has deteriorated is many parts of the country, as a very confused strategy is being implemented. Nato is seeking to defeat the Taliban militarily while at the same time starting substantive talks with them. Unsurprisingly, even those Taliban leaders who might want to talk have little incentive to try when they may be shot by the Americans, or by the hard men on their own side for trying to make peace.
The much lamented General Stanley McChrystal was sacked by President Barack Obama and replaced by General David Petraeus, who has now been moved again to take charge of the CIA. But the change of strategy with the change of generals was later condemned by the British Ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who said: "What is so sad is that Petraeus' tactic of ramping up violence, trebling the forces and reversing McChrystal's policy of protecting the civilian population is in the hope that it will frighten and beat the Taliban into submission.
"Petraeus hopes that the Taliban will surrender, but they won't. And Petraeus' strategy of violence is taking out precisely those slightly older commanders that are more likely to want to do a deal. So by forcing down the average age of the fighting commanders, he is making the Taliban more radical and less tractable."
The US has spent close to $450 billion (Dh1.652 trillion) on supporting its troops in Afghanistan over the 10 years, money it can ill afford in the present financial crisis. More than 10,000 people were killed in 2010 alone. While over 2,700 coalition servicemen have been killed in the 10 years, tens of thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis have died as well.
All this waste has happened in a war in which the Nato political leaders lost control, and failed to stick to a clear aim. Nato's invasion started with the intention of capturing or killing Al Qaida members, as well as toppling the Taliban government which supported Al Qaida. This mission failed, and Nato drifted into a more general pacification role for all of Afghanistan. And once President Hamid Karzai was in office, the Nato troops took on even more varied duties as they were tasked with fighting the drugs trade, supporting the Afghan forces, and also fighting insurgents. At one stage, the Taliban had almost stopped fighting. But in the last few years when the coalition forces were sent out against them and the drone attacks increased, the Taliban rallied and returned to war, getting to the present situation in which they seem ready to wait out Nato and see no need to get involved in peace talks when they think they are more likely to be able to walk back into Kabul under their own authority in a matter of a year or so.
Arab horror
The Arab states in the Gulf have been watching events with horror, but have not done much other than support the US, although the Saudis have gone one step further by trying to engage the Taliban in a conversation about a negotiated future. The Arabs have very strong interest in seeing a stable Pakistan and Afghanistan. Thousands of disaffected young Gulf nationals have gone to Afghanistan and learnt how to become militant. Traditional trade and investment with both countries is harmed by the continuing confusion.
And there is a long-term awareness that if Nato really does pull out, leaving Afghanistan to its own devices, the Chinese will not be able to sit by as radical Islamist forces take control of areas of Afghanistan, with the potential to build up bases for disaffected Uighurs from China's own Muslim population.
Chinese intervention is a distinct possibility if the Taliban or survivors from Al Qaida establish links with like-minded Uighurs.
gulfnews : Nato cannot show much for a decade of Afghan war
