Afghanistan and the Pakistan crisis

NATO and the US are calling for a boost in troops for the war in Afghanistan, but it is necessary
to assess whether the only options available are to provide more troops or withdraw. In view of
this demand, many experts consider that military strategy should be reassessed. Development
policies should be used more effectively, and the Afghan government needs assistance in
managing the funds it receives. Negotiations with the insurgents are vital and the Afghan war
should be situated in a regional context, particularly in relation to Pakistan. The assassination
of Benazir Bhutto highlights this need.

Canada, Germany and Holland are immersed in debate over sending more troops or withdrawing.
The US and NATO are urging Spain, Germany and other countries to be more flexible about
regulations in order to commit more troops to combat areas. Spain deploys about 700 soldiers
in the less dangerous northern part of the country.

According to the United Nations, a fifth of the territory is highly unsafe for operations. NATO
and the US do not control large areas of the country, and the Afghan government even less so,
as its effective control does not extend beyond Kabul. The Taliban and other armed groups are
not in complete control of the war-torn territories, but they prevent the international forces
from securing their positions.

The insurgents use suicide attacks and bombs on the roads. NATO and the US carry out frequent
air attacks, which cause civilian deaths and therefore resentment. This in turn feeds a multiple
insurgency that includes a mixture of radical Islam, drug trafficking, tribal identities and local
patrimonialism. The British journalist Simon Jenkins, summing up in The Guardian, considers
that for the allies “there is no realistic mission, no achievable objective, no long-term strategy,
only the fruitless pursuit of failure”.

The US and its allies expect the Afghan army and the corrupt police to fulfil their missions,
but professional personnel are lacking and a judicial system is not in place. Hamid Karzai’s
government and its representatives are accused of corruption and of not protecting women in
public office, who are increasingly under threat.

Afghanistan exports 93% of the world’s opium supply. Growing poppies provides work and
guarantees the power of the warlords. Despite the eradication and substitution programme,
cultivation increased by 59% in 2006, amounting to a third of the country’s gross national
product. Armed groups invest the profits in weapons and provide jobs, something that the state
does not do. The US wants to fumigate the poppy fields, as it did in Colombia, but this will only
increase the unpopularity of the international forces.

The debate over Afghanistan focuses on three aspects. The mission’s objective, resources
needed (especially human resources), and negotiations with the insurgents. When the US
invaded Afghanistan in 2001, it overthrew the Taliban, a Muslim group of Pashtun origin which
is the ethnic majority in Afghanistan and part of Pakistan. However, Washington and its allies
put more effort into the war against Al-Qaeda and arming groups linked to drug trafficking
such as the Northern Alliance. Other aspects were neglected such as encouraging development
projects, controlling the border with Pakistan and promoting inclusive policies in a society with
deep ethnic and tribal divisions.

Not enough attention was given to including the population outside Kabul, and developing plans
to combat poverty, provide jobs for rural areas and protect women’s rights. International donors
have been controlling the security budget, the mandates of the foreign troop operations and the
tax system, thus weakening the government and Parliament, as pointed out by Astri Suhrke, an
expert at the Michelsen Institute (Bergen).

The Taliban fled to Pakistan, where they regained their strength with the support of the Pakistan
army intelligence service. Pakistan military personnel openly support the Taliban because of
their sense of ideological affinity. They are also interested in counteracting India’s influence in
Afghanistan. The US has failed to exert any pressure on Islamabad – such as cutting off military
aid – to make this support cease. In the wake of Bhutto’s death, destabilisation will increase in
the Afghan-Pakistan border region. Barnett Rubin, from the Center on International Cooperation
considers that “the main centre of terrorism ‘of global reach’ is in Pakistan”.

In NATO circles the need for a unified ISAF-US command is debated, in addition to massive
deployment of troops. The US Government is planning to send 3,000 extra marines as a way
to put pressure on its European allies. But before talking about numbers, a different use
of development aid should be analysed, to strengthen the government and lead the way to
negotiations. The British General Richard Dannatt declared in September that most people who
fight with the Taliban do so “for financial, social and tribal reasons” and that “we must beware
of tarring them all with the same brush, as I am sure that one day we will need to deal with
and eventually reconcile the elected government with the majority of this people”. Europe
too needs to re-examine its short-sighted local and regional strategy. In the wake of Benazir
Bhutto’s assassination, and given President Musharraf’s increasing weakness, there will be no
solution for Afghanistan that is not linked to Pakistan’s future.

Mariano Aguirre, socio del Transnational Institute, es Director de Paz y Seguridad de FRIDE, Madrid.