Rough road ahead

 

 

A cursory look at the map showing the toll on United Kingdom’s troops in Afghanistan clearly shows the challenge that the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) forces face in this war ravaged country. The maximum number of casualties have occurred in southern provinces around Helmand and Kandahar – at least 223 deaths since the war began in 2001.

Facing elections in the coming year, the Gordon Brown-led Labour Party is finding it hard to reassure the United Kingdom’s public in general and the families of the troops in particular about the effectiveness of the war in stopping the threat from arriving in London. In a speech at the Royal College of Defence Studies in London, Brown stressed that Afghan campaign was "prosecuted out of necessity" as three-quarters of the terrorist activities that happen in Britain arose from these areas.

And this is one of the many factors that US President Barack Obama will have in mind while spelling out his policy on Afghanistan, the tone for which was set recently, when he announced his intention to "finish the job".

Though the process is likely to begin by sending more troops to Afghanistan to control Taliban resurgence before the final withdrawal begins, negotiation with the Taliban has not been entirely ruled out. Though the stated mission is to “dismantle and degrade their (al-Qaeda's and Taliban's) capabilities and destroy their networks”, there are strong indications that the Taliban can be a part of the final settlement that would see security responsibilities transferred to the Afghans.

The likely troop reinforcement comes weeks after the US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, in a report warned that "failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible". McChrystal had sought 40,000 more troops for implementing his new strategy in Afghanistan that concentrated on protecting civilians rather than killing insurgents or controlling the territory.

It was following this report that the US President began a series of consultations – nine in all – with his war council that included Vice President Joe Biden, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, secretary of defense Robert Michael Gates, US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan ambassador Richard Holbrooke and US Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal besides management and budget director Peter Orszag whose consultation is seen as a result of the budgetary concerns raised in recent weeks. While US war expenditure is likely to increase by as much as $30 billion to $40 billion per year, the McChrystal plan had warned that "inadequate resources will likely result in failure”. Obama’s new strategy will have to negotiate many domestic and international pressures. In the recent months, the American and British public has viewed the Afghanistan war as “not winnable”. Voices within the US Democrats, who fear Obama’s association with a growingly unpopular war in an election year, oppose any major escalation of involvement in Afghanistan – their belief that the conflict is no longer central to US security.

Terming Afghan President Hamid Karzai an "unworthy partner" tainted by corruption, House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi also spoke out against any move to send more troops while other democrats urge Obama to outline an "exit strategy". Obama’s task includes countering Republicans who see his meetings as a testimony to indecisiveness on the part of the Democratic president.

Part of the broader challenge is the risk that the conflict carries for neighbouring Pakistan and allies like the United Kingdom. The 1,10,000-strong multinational Nato force in Afghanistan comprises at least 8,000 British soldiers besides about 68,000 soldiers from the United States of America. And the country’s analysts see an opportunity in negotiating a deal with the Taliban rather than letting the war go on. Hints that such a strategy was being followed came from none other than Afghan President Hamid Karzai who called for a Loya Jirga or a national assembly meeting after taking an oath for a second term in office, stating it necessary for “peace and reconciliation”.

Hillary Clinton, when asked about Karzai’s call, said that while the US was going to ask questions “about how it proceeds, but the general idea of exploring this is one that we have been open to.”

The realisation comes from the fact that Nato forces have not been able to inflict any major damage on the Taliban in southern Afghanistan over the past few years. At the International Seminar on Global Security at Reuters Institute in Oxford, Richard Barrett, coordinator of United Nations al-Qaeda/ Taliban monitoring team, revealed that the Taliban was able to raise enough money for its operations though al-Qaeda’s fund raising had suffered over the period. “al-Qaeda is short of money,” Barrett said. “There is money flow from Taliban to al-Qaeda, which means that al-Qaeda has to buy in some association,” he added, indicating that Nato mission in Afghanistan had only partly succeeded. Another stumbling block in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan is Pakistan’s strange position in the war. While Pakistan has launched a huge military offensive against the Taliban forces along its western border seeing it as a security threat, it is unwilling to take an initiative against those elements in Afghanistan. “Pakistan is of course concerned about US troops leaving which may give the Taliban a chance to take control,” said Barrett. “Their long association can be revived and Pakistan does not want to lose the chance.”

But policy makers see an opportunity in Taliban’s position, especially its distancing from the al-Qaeda. While the opinion makers are opposed to the idea of ceding any space to the al-Qaeda to regroup, calling a Loya Jirga or grand assembly, in which reconciled elements from the Taliban would participate and the constitution rewritten to accommodate them, is not ruled out. The differences arise about the timing of executing the formula.

Holbrooke wants to soften the Taliban by continuing military pressure for two to three years before offering the negotiation. The other view is to offer Quetta Shura, the Taliban HQ, a ceasefire.

“Progress should not be contingent on a ceasefire. The Shura have said they will only stop fighting when the foreigners leave. But this is a matter of sequencing, if a ceasefire entails, as it must, a commitment to leave. Second, a Loya Jirga should be called to which the Taliban leadership should be explicitly invited. This will rewrite the constitution and redivide the political spoils. Third, an internal Afghan settlement must be guaranteed by its neighbours, principally Pakistan, Iran, and India, but also regional powers with substantial influence – Saudi Arabia, Russia and China,” The Guardian wrote in its November 18 editorial, while acknowledging that the formula had pitfalls but at the same time asserting that “they (Taliban) would at least have to think seriously about it.”

The next task for President Obama is to reassure allies and the people of the US and other countries involved in the war while at the same time come up with an exit plan that does not leave Afghanistan in the state of instability as it did in 1989 after the collapse of the erstwhile USSR. "I feel confident that when the American people hear a clear rationale for what we are doing there and how we intend to achieve our goals, they will be supportive," Barack Obama recently said. However, whether this optimism is shared by his fellow countrymen remains to be seen.