AFGHANISTAN: PARTIAL CLARIFYING OF THE STRATEGY
Gagik Harutyunyan
"Noravank" Foundation
01 February 2010
The logic of the global policy is mostly conditioned by the
developments in South Asia. So it is not surprising that on December
1, 2009, the address of the US president Barak Obama at the military
academy at West Point devoted to the Afghanistan issues was at the
centre of attention of the analysts and the journalists.
President’s decisions. The key items of Barak Obama’s address are
as follows:
The terms of the US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan were set:
it is supposed that this process will start in July 2011.
At the same time it is supposed to defeat and rout al-Qaeda1 before
the withdrawal of the troops to protect the US and its allies from
terrorist. With this purpose president Obama signed a decree to
dispatch to Afghanistan 30 thousand additional troops and to help
strengthening Afghanistan security forces in order they could fight
the Taliban.
Alongside with the withdrawal of the troops it is supposed to pass
the reins of government to the Afghani authorities and to start
negotiations with the so-called "moderate Talibans" in order to calm
down the situation.
The importance of Afghanistan and the necessity to keep on working
with that country were especially mentioned.
The commentators mention that the Afghani "road map" of the US
president in its essence resembles the programme on withdrawal of the
American troops from Iraq. At the same time the claiming of the terms
of the troops’ withdrawal at some extent brings to the conclusion
that new US "relaxation" policy2 continues and in this context the
address pursued definite propaganda goals.
Propaganda elements. It is remarkable that while speaking about 9/11
and the reasons of war in Afghanistan and those who are guilty of
that the US president alongside with al-Qaeda and Taliban mentioned
the USSR. According to Obama al-Qaeda came to power in Afghanistan
after the war conducted by the Soviet Union in 1979-1989. Meanwhile
it is known that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Landen were "created"
by the American and Pakistani special services in the last period
of war against the Soviet army when there were no doubts about the
withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The fact that the
president touched upon the USSR is simply conditioned by the fact that
at present in mass media often a comparison is made between the wars
of the USSR and USA in Afghanistan. Particularly, some commentators
present the data of the western sociological agencies according to
which Afghanis considered president Najibullah (the later was a Soviet
protege and had governed the country just for 6 years after which he
was overthrown by mujahidin in 1992 and in 1996 he was executed in
Kabul) their best leader in the 20th century. It is not surprising
because the Soviets besides the severe military actions had also
carried out large-scale economic and educational programmes and that
is why the parallels between the USSR and USA are not always to the
favour of the later. But in both cases it should be mentioned that
both super-powers met severe resistance in that peculiar country.
Situation in Afghanistan. In his address the US president considered
the situation in Afghanistan as rather hard: Afghani fighters are
dominant in 11 provinces of 34 and just from military point of view
the developments are very problematic for the US-NATO military forces.
It is characteristic that Obama mentioned that despite the negative
tendencies Afghanistan yet could not be considered lost for the United
States and this describes the American understanding of the issue.
The forecasts of the special services are also pessimistic. According
to the former CIA Station chief in Kabul and ex-vice-chairman of
National Intelligence Council Graham Fuller the plans of Obama to
reach the military dominance and then to leave Afghanistan "softly"
are almost unrealizable, and the new troops dispatched there would
only protect the military units which had already been there. Fuller,
the author of "The Future of Political Islam" book and one of the
best experts of the region, believes that there is no way to reassure
Pashto that "the Americans are friends and the Taliban is the enemy".
The new Commander of the US and NATO military contingent in Afghanistan
General McCrystal assesses the current situation as very hard and
demands for 80 thousand additional soldiers; as we know consequently
it was decided to send to Afghanistan 30 thousand soldiers. But taking
into consideration the fact that there are already about 70 thousand
soldiers in the country and the number of the national Afghan army
is about 100 thousand it should be stated that the number of those
who are involved in the military actions against Afghan fighters has
already exceeded the one it was in 1979-1989. Let us mention that
in Afghanistan, just like in Iraq, there are a number of companies
providing security, services, connections and communications with
rather shadow stuff working on outsourcing bases.
Further to the military issues the political situation in the country
is also rather anxious. According to information sources president
Hamid Karzai after being "re-elected" and strengthening his hand
began to demonstrate more independent behavior. In his statements he
expresses the idea that it is impossible to score a success only by
military means and he tries to conduct more realistic policy.
Particularly on December 3, 2009 in his interview to AP agency Karzai
expresses the intention to find common points with the spiritual
leader of the Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar.
As we have already mentioned today, such a policy is accepted in
Washington but the impression is that the US administration is against
such processes to go without its strict control. As a result, the
traditional American "restrictive" mechanisms are being used against
Karzai: in authoritative American publications today one can often
meet materials where president Karzai and his high-ranking brother
are accused in being involved in drug traffic and various corruption
actions, as well as the results of the presidential elections are
questioned. As it is known the compromised allies are more obedient.
At the same time in such a situation the resentment is fermenting
not only in Afghanistan but also in their domestic political field.
Public mood in the United States. According to public opinion polls,
today 51% of the Americans believe that it is not rational to spend so
much human and financial resources on the war in Afghanistan as the US
does. About 42% are against sending additional troops to Afghanistan
and only 26% supports that decision.
It should be noticed that the post-crisis situation boosts the
formation of the pessimistic attitude in the US. It is suffice to
mention that the budget deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion, and the
national debt reached almost fantastic level – $12 trillion. Let us
add that the budget of the Pentagon for 2010 is $636 billion, and it
will cost the taxpayers additional $3 billion, i.e. $1 million will
be spent on one soldier annually.
In the circumstances concerned, in order to finance the war in
Afghanistan some American law makers offer to raise the taxes by 1%.
Such projects, of course, are not accepted enthusiastically in the
American society. At the same time a number of experts prove that
available means are not always spent in the optimal way: some facts
appear in the information field that the considerable part of the
humanitarian aid sent to Afghanistan is appropriated by the Taliban.
In order to compensate the scanty general resources in some way today
the American administration tries to "internationalize" the issue.
Internationalization of the issue. Information agencies mention that
on the days preceding the address Obama had talks with his British,
French and Russian colleagues. The US aspires to present the situation
in Afghanistan as an issue important for the international community
and to involve other countries in military and political developments.
At the same time the situation in South Asia turned into a matter
of concern for the countries of the region and the prospects of the
withdrawal of the Americans from Afghanistan causes even more anxiety.
But each of those countries reacts to the issue in its own way.
Chinese who regard South Asia as the "territory of their national
interests", successively reinforce their presence in Afghanistan.
Today "China Metallurgical Group" Corporation develops Ainkan copper
mine not far from Kabul. The cost of the works is about $3.4 billion
which is the largest investment project in Afghanistan today. In the
opinion of the director of the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute
Frederik Star, the US and NATO together carried out preparatory works
in order China conquer Afghanistan economically. It should be added
that judging by the materials in the mass media China is not going
to restrict itself to mainly economic plans.
There are some steps made by India as well: besides the "soft" tactics
(the construction of the parliament building in Kabul, extending
cultural contacts and etc.), Delhi also proposes to reinforce defence
of the northern and western borders of Afghanistan. It is obvious that
the main concern is the protection from the radical Islamists. Most
probably that Russia should also have such concerns and using its
partially preserved possibilities in Afghanistan it has to try to
create buffer zones in the border areas of the Central Asian countries.
All these testify that there is a tendency to shift Afghanistan issue
from the global plane and turn it into the regional issue. If this
tendency is materialized and the countries of the region start to
play key roles in the solution of the issues then it would be the only
chance somehow to regulate extremely chaotic and explosive situation
in South Asia.
1The names "al-Qaeda" and "Taliban" are a bit conditional: the fighters
struggling against the US and NATO are not unified on any spiritual
and ideological base and represent different tribal and ethnic groups.
2The awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the US president (a little
hasty) is, at some extent, a component of the information provision
of that policy.