Afghanistan: Linger or Withdraw?
Do the United States and its allies have to stay in Afghanistan? On Monday in Kabul, diplomatic leaders from more than 60 countries gave a green light to Hamid Karzai for the new Afghan army to take on the responsibility of the country’s security in 2014. This is still on the distant horizon because, nine years after the beginning of the war, the interrogations into this military intervention are multiplying. This war is about to become one of the longest in the history of the United States.
There are signs of difficulty on the ground. Despite the presence of a multinational force comprised of some 130,000 soldiers put under the command of NATO, the forecasted offensive on Kandahar was constantly postponed, while the Marine operation in southern Afghanistan once again did not produce the expected results. Thus, the first questions and interrogations deal with the strategy adopted by Barack Obama at the end of 2009. After the commander of the ISAF, General Stanley McChrystal, was quoted speaking unfavorably about Vice President Joe Biden, he was dismissed.
This recent dismissal increased the uncertainties at the heart of a strategy based on “counter insurrection” doctrines, and now the plan is resting on the hope of successfully convincing civilians of the legitimacy of the intervention. Just as former President Bush did with relative success in Iraq, this strategy also includes a surge. But is the number of supplementary soldiers enough? French General Vincent Desportes, also recalled by his bosses, is in doubt. President Obama opted to send 30,000 soldiers more. "One has to either send 100,000 troops or none at all. It is impossible to wage a "semi-war,"" Desportes told Le Monde.
In addition, the efforts undertaken with the Afghan civilians have not amounted to much, especially in the south, bordering Pakistan, where the Taliban are growing stronger. The strategy is all the more difficult to apply since the president set July 2011 as the date for the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops. But if the formation of an Afghan army advanced, it is not certain that, even after four years, the strategy is capable of securing a country that is hard to control because of its geography and ethnic divisions.
Westerners especially must settle the situation on the objectives of this war by 2014, and their public opinions are becoming increasingly unfavorable. Initially, the Americans launched this intervention in order to find the people responsible for the attacks in 2001: bin Laden and al-Qaida. At the time, it had taken only weeks to overthrow the regime in Kabul. Today, it is not the least of paradoxes to see that the Americans and their allies must overcome the worst difficulties in order to win.
In another aspect, the reconstruction — or rather, the creation — of institutions is still very far from being regulated. Of course, some elections took place and the international coalition can also put forward its goals for women’s education, which in itself is a feat. But the exportation of democracy — as the neoconservatives surrounding President Bush saw it — has fallen into the domain of illusion.
The re-election of President Karzai was strongly criticized, especially by his principle rival, Abdullah Abdullah, and also by the leaders of the international coalition. Many are starting to speak out, such that the next legislative election in September has been postponed because an election involving some 2,500 candidates might transform itself into a war. Despite tens of billions of dollars of aid, Afghanistan is still one of the poorest countries in the world, and a big part of its economy still depends on opium trafficking, which finances the Taliban uprising. The decision was made during the international conference to let President Karzai run the government — with his budget — from now on, but the majority of the financial fluxes leave people questioning, with reason, the high level of corruption.
Of course, it is unimaginable to think that Afghanistan will become America’s grave, as it was for the USSR. But there is a risk that the hopeful withdrawal demanded of the American army will be quick. This could be a serious political setback for Barack Obama, who made the stability of Afghanistan one of the prime objectives in his presidency, and also for NATO, which is carrying out its first intervention “outside of its limits” (i.e. outside of Europe) since its creation.
There are signs of difficulty on the ground. Despite the presence of a multinational force comprised of some 130,000 soldiers put under the command of NATO, the forecasted offensive on Kandahar was constantly postponed, while the Marine operation in southern Afghanistan once again did not produce the expected results. Thus, the first questions and interrogations deal with the strategy adopted by Barack Obama at the end of 2009. After the commander of the ISAF, General Stanley McChrystal, was quoted speaking unfavorably about Vice President Joe Biden, he was dismissed.
This recent dismissal increased the uncertainties at the heart of a strategy based on “counter insurrection” doctrines, and now the plan is resting on the hope of successfully convincing civilians of the legitimacy of the intervention. Just as former President Bush did with relative success in Iraq, this strategy also includes a surge. But is the number of supplementary soldiers enough? French General Vincent Desportes, also recalled by his bosses, is in doubt. President Obama opted to send 30,000 soldiers more. "One has to either send 100,000 troops or none at all. It is impossible to wage a "semi-war,"" Desportes told Le Monde.
In addition, the efforts undertaken with the Afghan civilians have not amounted to much, especially in the south, bordering Pakistan, where the Taliban are growing stronger. The strategy is all the more difficult to apply since the president set July 2011 as the date for the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops. But if the formation of an Afghan army advanced, it is not certain that, even after four years, the strategy is capable of securing a country that is hard to control because of its geography and ethnic divisions.
Westerners especially must settle the situation on the objectives of this war by 2014, and their public opinions are becoming increasingly unfavorable. Initially, the Americans launched this intervention in order to find the people responsible for the attacks in 2001: bin Laden and al-Qaida. At the time, it had taken only weeks to overthrow the regime in Kabul. Today, it is not the least of paradoxes to see that the Americans and their allies must overcome the worst difficulties in order to win.
In another aspect, the reconstruction — or rather, the creation — of institutions is still very far from being regulated. Of course, some elections took place and the international coalition can also put forward its goals for women’s education, which in itself is a feat. But the exportation of democracy — as the neoconservatives surrounding President Bush saw it — has fallen into the domain of illusion.
The re-election of President Karzai was strongly criticized, especially by his principle rival, Abdullah Abdullah, and also by the leaders of the international coalition. Many are starting to speak out, such that the next legislative election in September has been postponed because an election involving some 2,500 candidates might transform itself into a war. Despite tens of billions of dollars of aid, Afghanistan is still one of the poorest countries in the world, and a big part of its economy still depends on opium trafficking, which finances the Taliban uprising. The decision was made during the international conference to let President Karzai run the government — with his budget — from now on, but the majority of the financial fluxes leave people questioning, with reason, the high level of corruption.
Of course, it is unimaginable to think that Afghanistan will become America’s grave, as it was for the USSR. But there is a risk that the hopeful withdrawal demanded of the American army will be quick. This could be a serious political setback for Barack Obama, who made the stability of Afghanistan one of the prime objectives in his presidency, and also for NATO, which is carrying out its first intervention “outside of its limits” (i.e. outside of Europe) since its creation.
Next article![]( "Taking Disarmament Seriously")
