Need for a realistic approach in Afghanistan

THE recently concluded Presidential election in Afghanistan hasn't reduced anxiety over Afghanistan's future. It's also unlikely that it will usher in much-needed stability in that war-torn country. In fact, the scenario has become more complex. Her path to democracy has been overshadowed by poor turnout and fraud.
His chief political rival and former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah haven't accepted incumbent Afghan President Hamid Karzai's victory. The loser in the country's Independent Electoral Complaints Commission is challenging the legitimacy of the polls. It's being described as "state-engineered fraud" and some analysts have already observed that 618 of the approximately 2,100 allegations are serious enough to have potential in affecting the outcome of the election itself. Reports have indicated that there have already been sharp differences of opinion between Obama's Special Envoy Holbrooke and Hamid Karzai over how the election has been conducted.
Recent course of events haven't been good news for the US or her Nato allies. August has been the deadliest month of war for US troops and 2009 has already become the deadliest year for foreign forces in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 1050 civilian casualties and over 300 military casualties in Afghanistan this year.
These factors are making the public safety and national security issue in Afghanistan more complex. It's jeopardising the country's extremely fragile political paradigm. The role of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is also becoming more controversial. Rising civilian casualties and the Taleban resurgence have added sensitivity to the matrix. To this equation has been added certain other equally important problems that need to be addressed comprehensively and immediately -- infrastructural development, protection of human rights and reduction of rampant corruption.
This situation has led the US Administration to re-evaluate their course of action in Afghanistan. More troops and a new strategy for using them are emerging as critical components to the 8-year old effort by US and Nato forces to defeat the Taleban and secure Afghanistan. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has acknowledged that there are 'bright spots as well as gloom and doom' in the new US assessment of the war.
The US Commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan presently has 103,000 troops under his command but this is expected to rise to 110,000 (US contribution being 68,000) by year's end. The success of the principle of "surge" as evidence in Iraq under General David Petraeus is being cited by some in the Pentagon as a possible means for securing victory in Afghanistan. The White House however knows that mere increase of numbers will not be enough in Afghanistan.
There is also the question of mind-set. It worked in Iraq because the Sunni population in Iraq was persuaded to relatively reduce their support for Al-Qaeda extremists. Such a situation does not appear to be imminent in Afghanistan with regard to the Taleban.
Military analysts from both sides of the Atlantic have also pointed out that more needs to be done than just numbers. They have alleged that the western presence is under-resourced in terms of necessary equipment and hardware.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his fourth visit to Afghanistan this year has mentioned in Helmand Province in Afghanistan that Britain will provide greater protection for its troops from roadside improvised explosive devices and will also facilitate support for training 50,000 Afghan soldiers so that they can take on more responsibility for "their own affairs." Such hopes however need to be judged against certain emerging ground realities.
ISAF policy planners and US need to seriously assess whether increasing the number of troops on the ground will also heighten the prevailing sense of occupation among the notoriously resistant Pashtun population. If higher civilian casualties accompany such an escalation in number of troops, it might reverse even further, the already critical rural Afghan mind-set.
The second associated problem of increasing the number of troops will be ensuring necessary supplies for them. Recent militant activities in the Khyber Pass and near Torkham (in Pakistan) and the cutting off of supply routes haven't been welcome news. One presumes that the Central Asian route will now be put to greater use but for that to be a success, there has to be a sense of participation from the Afghan warlords who control the routes and the villages in the North and North West of the country. Abdullah's defeat through alleged rigging will not facilitate the desired compromise. It may be recalled that most of his support came from these regions.
The Obama Administration also needs to re-think about its policy of increasing and authorising covert drone attacks across the Durand Line, which separates Afghanistan from Pakistan. Such attacks might have short-term value but at the end of the day is creating backlash in the region and enraging the local civilian population.
The new Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has recently remarked in Ankara, Turkey that Nato's presence in Afghanistan will continue as long as it takes to ensure that the country is secure. He has also said that "we cannot afford for Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for terrorists."
Such assurance will however be of little use if steps are not taken to guarantee that the villages and areas re-taken from the Taleban remain within the effective governance structure run from Kabul. It would be important for Nato and ISAF to practice what General McCrysta has already mentioned. He thinks that 60% of the problem would go away if jobs could be created in the rural areas away from Kabul.
This is absolutely right and more efforts should be undertaken in this direction. Afghanistan suffers from almost 53% unemployment, and 71% of its population is under the age of 30. Jobs need to be created in construction, mining and agriculture. These jobs will help to give Afghans a stake in society so that they will not want to attack it.
President Obama and his coalition partners in Afghanistan will have to show that they are keen to protect the interests of ordinary Afghans. This will mean the replacement of corrupt and incompetent ministers and provincial governors and the building of effective governance.
As a citizen of South Asia, I want a stable, terrorist-free Afghanistan (one of the eight members of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) that can move forward and cease to be a source of tension for the region.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador and can be reached at [email protected]