Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Facing Defeat in Afghanistan
As the allies squabble about burden-sharing, the situation on the ground is becoming increasingly grim.
Nato troops plunged into a vicious new round of fighting with the Taliban yesterday as hundreds of Afghan civilians fled their homes in villages around Kandahar. The violence, in which about 50 militants reportedly died, again underscored how insecure and ungovernable large tracts of the south and east remain six years after "victory in Kabul".
The impact of the continuing bloodshed, said to be the worst since 2001, is being felt far beyond the battlefields of Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan. Simmering tensions between Nato members over "burden-sharing" are bubbling to the surface in Berlin, Washington and London. All agree the alliance's mission is under-resourced and under-funded; none has a ready answer to the problem.
Despite a steady escalation of force levels from about 5,000 in 2003 to more than 40,000 today, the fight grows ever more desperate. The possibility of military failure, previously unthinkable, is now openly discussed. Few deny that Nato's first and biggest operation outside Europe is in trouble. According to a senior European diplomat, the alliance's cohesion and credibility is increasingly on the line.
"We are now in the most difficult phase in Afghanistan," said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato secretary-general, in a recent interview with the International Herald Tribune. "If we do not prevail, the consequences ... will be dire." Not only was Afghanistan's future as a democratic, unified state in the balance; so, too, was Europe's security in the face of reviving terrorist threats emanating from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.
Speaking after meeting Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, in London last week, Gordon Brown vowed Afghanistan would "never again" become the failed state used by al-Qaida to plot the 9/11 attacks. But other Nato members seem less certain.
Germany's parliament recently debated pulling out its 3,700 troops; public opinion supports withdrawal. Despite urgent US appeals for Germany, France, Italy and Spain to drop their "caveats" and switch troops from peacekeeping and training to combat duties, there is no sign they will comply. Even Canada, on the Afghan front line from the first, is reviewing its role.
According to the US Council on Foreign Relations, insurgency-related deaths, military and civilian, have topped 5,000 so far this year, up 1,000 on 2006. Suicide bombings and kidnappings targeting civilians are also on the rise. A report by thinktank Chatham House concluded meanwhile that the conflict is becoming "regionalised", involving tribal areas of Pakistan and alleged arms supplies from Iran.
Adding to the gloom, US research suggests the number of Afghans supporting a return to Taliban rule has doubled, to 15%.
Nato's difficulties extend far beyond the Taliban resurgence and burden-sharing disputes. Senior commanders stress military might alone cannot prevail in Afghanistan. But diplomats say the long-term strategy and the inter-agency coordination required to deliver political stability, economic recovery and reliable services are lacking. Nor, despite billions already disbursed, is there nearly enough money.
UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon recently advocated stronger local leadership, increased international engagement and tighter regional partnerships to help find a way forward. But in a sign of how bad matters have become, the UN was forced this week to plead with the Taliban to stop attacking its food convoys.
The deepening Afghan crisis is encouraging talk of peace, notwithstanding Taliban demands for the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forces. But according to Professor William Maley, writing in World Today magazine, Mr Karzai's recent offer to negotiate, and reported British-backed efforts to win over "moderate" insurgents, could backfire by inviting greater resistance. Such moves might also encourage rearmament among the Taliban's tribal foes.
Winter will bring a lull in the fighting. But the spring thaw will see the whole bloody cycle begin anew. Unless something drastic happens to break the pattern, this year's Nato fissures may become next year's all-out ruptures. The death toll will mount. And Mr Brown, with 7,700 British troops in the firing line, may find himself trapped between US-dictated strategic imperatives and a growing desire to bring the boys home.
Simon Tisdall is an assistant editor of the Guardian and a foreign affairs columnist. He was previously a foreign leader writer for the paper and has also served as its foreign editor and its US editor, based in Washington DC.
© 2007 The Guardian
17 Comments so far
Show AllEvery NATO country with troops in Afghanistan should recall them. Each NATO soldier in Afghanistan frees up one American soldier or marine to wage Bush's illegal, immoral, unnecessary, pointless, and racist war in Iraq.
Europe must learn to stand up to the United States of Atrocities. Europe must stop enabling the United States, a country whose central mission in life seems to be imposing as much suffering to as many people around the world as possible.
Hey, I know. Why don't we ask Turkey to provide more NATO troops?
Oh, right...
FYI Locust - Turkey IS supporting the the Afghanistan NATO effort militarily. That's one reason why they are upset over total lack of support against the PKK terrorists by the US, Iraq and other NATO members.
A couple of decades ago the US gave the Soviet Union a Vietnam in Afghanistan, but now the US is getting a dose of its own medicine. Bon appetit.
In the name of God, the All Merciful, the Mercy-giving
Is NATO this dense? I mean common, it really is quite simple: If foreign militaries come onto your own land armed to the teeth, dismantling the native governance structures of your lan, you will fight to get them the heck off your land...it's really quite simple.
And Afghanistan of all places! Those people have been fighting foreign militaries on their soil for decades! They've never given up before, and they sure as heck won't give up now.
Just common sense, that's all I ask of these people. Is that too much to ask?
And then everybody is scandalized by the audacity of the Taliban to demand unconditional withdrawal…of course, the USofA and it's allies pull out the trump card: but if we don't stay here murdering these people and savaging their land, they'll never become a democracy!
littlem85,
Don't forget that the United States of Atrocities supplied weapons and money to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Afghanistan is the way it is today because the USA actively supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda and helped to put them in power. The USA is like a bad neighbor who lets his pitbull dogs run loose in the neighborhood until one bites his own kid.
Before turning their full attention on Afghanistan, BushCo has to finish building his military bases in Iraq, consolidating power, controlling Iraqi oil and invading Iran and controlling it's oil. His oil pipelines through Afghanistan are further down on his list. They'll be weaker after fighting among themselves anyway. Meanwhile his arms industry and military contractors are making a killing by fixing the game at the Wall Street Casino.
Ah how soon we forget!
Look at all that has transpired since the Taliban refused a UNOCAL consortium permission to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Even after they were wined and dined in Houston.
Oh yes, the UNOCAL rep was a nobody named Karzai.
The mission in Afghanistan should have been limited to going in and getting Osama Bin Laden (who Bush let escape) and then immediately leaving.
Lobo Gris
Yep, Lobo Gris
As we say "shoulda, woulda, coulda".
Too late now!
"Getting Osama and then immediately leaving"...
Perhaps it should have been limited to providing the assurances of a fair trial that the Afghan government had asked for before turning him over, but in that case it might have been harder to assure that he would not talk, and he would be useless as a CIA asset.
When did he last receive treatment in a US military hospital, and when was he last known to have met with a CIA representative? The data are there and they have not been challenged, because that would attract attention to the legitimate debate.
The stupidest conspiracy theory of all time is the one that assumes that conspiracies don't happen.
Raven November 1st, 2007 4:39 pm
"Getting Osama and then immediately leaving"…
"Perhaps it should have been limited to providing the assurances of a fair trial that the Afghan government had asked for before turning him over, but in that case it might have been harder to assure that he would not talk, and he would be useless as a CIA asset."
I wasn't aware that the Afgans had requested that. Thanks for the info, that puts a different light on the situation.
Lobo Gris
two points
1 I'm Canadian. Today we woke up to news that our government had passed a tax reduction. Great joy. What is not mentioned is that in Afghanistan we are not providing the necessary money there to acheive the mission's stated objectives. If you believe we should be there at all, it must be to stabilize the country, and we cannot do that by spending a dime of reconstruction for every dollar spent killing Afghanis. If we committed more money to the military presence we might need to kill fewer people. On the other hand, we should be spending ten times as much on reconstruction as on a military presence if we want to help stabilize the country. One could say we are failing in the stated goals of the mission because we are way way too cheap to do it right. That would be good to hear, but one doesn't even hear that criticism, because our stated mission is a lie. We're there to give legitimacy, if that is the word, to the US military agenda and the original War on Terror. We Candians are in Afghanistan untill the US says we're done. So, might as well do it cheaply; kill lots of Afghanis, loose a few soldiers at a steady trickle, and not talk about it. A tax break really does make sense. Shit.
2 Hey Lobo Gris. Do look that up about the Taliban and their pre-war offers that Raven refers to. Make sure you see it, read it, and know it was there. A depressing part of this whole War on Terror thing is hearing well-intentioned folks talk about the Taliban who refused to turn over bin-Laden, who sheltered the 911 terrorists, and so on. I have been trying to understand how I remember that the Taliban made those offers and we mocked them in this country, taking our cue from Mr. Bush and his administration. I remember during the run-up to the Afghani war that every instance of the word Taliban in Canadian newspapers was immediately followed by a 'reminder' that the Taliban refused to hand over bin-Laden and the 911 terrorist. I don't have a TV so I can only guess how strident the reminders must have been in that medium. There has been a lot of internet talk about how the mainstream media promoted the Iraqi war. The Afghani war was pretty much the same routine, but it worked better.
japan pulled out of afghanistan today.
Yes, just as the U.S. failed to appreciate 2000 years of Vietnamese struggle against invasion and domination, we failed to realize that no foreign power could ever control Afghanistan. Just look at the topography of the region.
We will eventually withdraw with our tail between our legs and the Afghans will deal with the Chinese and everyone loses because (from my observations) the Chinese are even more materialistic than Occidentals.
Thank you curmudgeon for reminding us of Karzai's bone fides. I hadn't forgotten them, merely misplaced them.
I think Zbigniew Breszinski was right: " you can't win a colonial war in a post-colonial world." He was talking about Iraq but it applies to the mission in Afghanistan as well. The Western powers can wreck a country, but they can't successfully rebuild it in their own image. It is long past the time to wage "perpetual war for perpetual peace." The war of aggression in Afghanistan is as wrong as the one in Iraq. It's motive was basic revenge demanded by the American public, and, as usual, it has only made things worse.
U.S. government,Find a new way. Start working with the United Nations, the ICC and the IAEA instead of manipulating and undermining them like a spoiled child
"Not only was Afghanistan's future as a democratic, unified state in the balance..."
Countries cannot be bombed into democracy and unification. The notion is absurd and should be abandoned permanently. Nation-building was never the objective. Bombs kills and destroy, period.