News of Obama’s decision was greeted with support. A December 3 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll showed that 55 percent of Americans backed Obama’s plan to withdraw troops from Iraq while 52 percent “favored” the war in Afghanistan.
In the absence of a broader vision, this is not the real change promised.
Though predictable, the public support for continuing the Afghanistan war is troubling. Perhaps Americans believe we dropped the ball in the “good war” we started to break Al Qaeda and capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, we initiated the “bad war” in Iraq, letting Al Qaeda and bin Laden remain at large. The result is a resurgent Taliban, (Some estimate a permanent presence in 72% of the country), a growing insurgency among Afghanistan tribes, and an uncontrolled border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
On December 7 we learned that the additional American troops will be deployed around Kabul. New York Times reporter Kirk Semple said this deployment is “a decision that reflects rising concern among military officers, diplomats and government officials about the increasing vulnerability of the capital and the surrounding area.”
Are American troops sitting ducks? Do we have an explicit statement of our goals in Afghanistan?
Other ingredients making South Asia volatile include heightened tensions between Pakistan and India over the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, continued killing of Pakistani civilians during U.S. military operations, a Pakistani government unable to come to terms with its own military and intelligence services let alone control its own border, and an increasingly corrupt Afghan government unable to deliver basic goods to its citizens.
Clearly, a broader vision is required to reduce the tensions in South Asia. Relying only on additional U.S. troops is not prudent.
There are two basic goals in Afghanistan. First, prevent the use of Afghanistan for training terrorists and mounting terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. This is certainly an immediate and mid-term goal and should be pursued. Second, provide stability in South Asia, especially considering that Pakistan and India are both nuclear-power states. This too is an immediate but also a long-term goal and certainly should be pursued.
So what should be done?
The first goal is partially military. The U.S., with NATO, can provide Afghanistan enough security while its army and police are trained.
The first goal is also partially political. The Taliban has reportedly severed relations with Al Qaeda. Talks between Afghanistan and the Taliban, brokered by Saudi Arabia, have gone nowhere yet, but the parties are talking. Under the right circumstances, the Taliban might be persuaded to honor the Afghanistan constitution that does away with most of the strict Islamic restrictions used during its rule in the 1990s. This presents an opportunity for the U.S. (with Saudi Arabia acting as go-between) to explore what it would take to cease the Taliban-sponsored insurgency.
The second goal involves easing the fears of seven countries with interests in South Asia. Currently, there is no political framework in which such fears can be mutually understood and alleviated.
Such a framework could be established through an on-going United Nations’ sponsored Seven-Party Talks similar to the Six-Party Talks that have eased tension in the Korean Peninsula. The seven parties are the United States, Russia, China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran.
For each country, fear abounds.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).