NATO infighting affects Afghanistan

M K Dhar

War against terror in Afghanistan is facing threat from within. While President Hamid Karzai is complaining about the NATO efforts to successfully wage the war, the USA and its allies have already begun to blame each other for the weal efforts being made. Today no NATO constituent is willing to commit more soldiers than it has already done. The rising causalities and reaction back home deters them from it.

Panic appears to have gripped the combined US-NATO command handling military operations in Afghanistan following heavy incursions by Taliban fighters from across the border in Pakistan and the intention of some countries to pull out their troops from the country. The recent surprise visit to Kabul of US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice and her British counterpart, David Miliband to prevent the alliance from falling apart has not helped to get over the infighting or extract promises from the participating countries to stay the course and prevent the Taliban from capturing territory and holding on to it.

President Hamid Karzai keeps complaining that the international effort to continue the "forgotten war" and ensure Afghanistan's security is halfhearted, with too few troops and too little cash to carry out development work. Ms. Rice and Mr. Miliband both agreed that the task of stabilizing the country needs more troops and a better coordinated reconstruction effort. But, the present situation suggests that unity of purpose has suffered, unity of command is fragmented and wore extensive use of air power is being resorted to fight the Taliban in the absence of enough ground troops, including afghan soldiers, whose performance leaves much to be desired. The combined coalition strength of 57.250 troops is totally insufficient to prevent the Taliban from staging a comeback and re-capture swathes of territory in southern Afghanistan.

To complicate matters further, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates annoyed the British and Netherlands by suggesting that European troops operating in southern Afghanistan were not experienced in counter-insurgency operations. These two countries, together with Canada, are bearing the brunt of intensified fighting in the south and east of the country. The military effort is being partly neutralized by the increased Taliban incursions from Pakistan and partly by lack of troops, equipment and funds to improve the logistics support and inject better equipment into the fight. This is despite the US forces targeting Taliban fighters even after they cross over into Pakistan. A recent instance is the killing of a veteran AL Qaeda leader Abu Laith Al-libi by a US predator drone missile in Mir Ali, North Waziristan. Not being involved in the kill, the Pakistan Government has denied any knowledge of the incident.

President Musharraf insists that any incursion into Pakistan by US or NATO forces will be deemed an invasion and treated like that. An independent US study authored by Gen (Retd) James Jones and former US Ambassador to UN Thomas Pickering has warned that Afghanistan risks becoming a failed state the dwindling international support and the growing Taliban insurgency will lead to America risking losing the war in Afghanistan unless it re-energizes anti-terrorism efforts in the region. Washington, however, insists that the killing of Al-libi showed that pressure is being kept up and that "nobody is giving up this fight." Unfortunately this assertion is not matched by its commitment to effectively deal with the Taliban incursions, step up rehabilitation and development effort and eradicate the flourishing drug trade.

Moreover, policy disagreements regarding the objectives of the war and its conduct are profound, with anti-war sentiments rising in Europe. The Germans do not want their troops to fight in Afghanistan and are engaged in only training duties. The 1,600 strong Dutch contingent, deployed in the action-packed Uruzgan province in southern Afghanistan, has also served notice that it will pull out in autumn. Canada has notified that it will, at best, stay on for another year if another 1,000 soldiers are provided to reinforce their hard-pressed contingent.

The United States, which has 29,000 soldiers in the country, has realized that no country is willing to commit additional troops though a few are to provide additional equipment. The United Kingdom, which has 7.800 troops in the fight is examining, though belatedly, that operations involving greater emphasis on the "comprehensive approach" in which the military, economic and political strands are more closely inter-woven, should henceforth guide its strategy. France, Italy and Spain are constrained by national lows guiding deployment of troops in non-combat zones. What seems to have actually happened is a sort of "balkanization" of Afghanistan. As Daan Everts, former civilian representative of the NATO Secretary General in Kabul put it: you have a little German Afghanistan in the north, an Italian Afghanistan in the west, Dutch Afghanistan in Uruzgan and a Canadian Afghanistan in Kandahar, and so on. Geographically NATO has been fractured, and also sectorally with equal ineffectiveness--like giving the justice sector totally to the Italians, counter-narcotics to the British, the police to Germans and anti-terrorism to the Americans.

In order to clear up the mess Lord Paddy Ashdown, a British MP and leader of the Liberal Democrats was to have arrived on the scene as the UN special envoy. A former European Union High Representative in Bosnia-Harzegovina, he had achieved success in restoring order to the strife-torn Balkan country. He was to be the main point of contact between President Hamid Karzai's Government, the international forces operating in the country, the European Union Policing Mission and the UN contingent, apart from coordinating the Afghanistan reconstruction effort, which has also been dogged by delays and corruption. Perhaps, he could also have addressed the core issue of isolating the fundamentalist and fighting Taliban from the bulk of the Pushtoon population in order to win over the latter to join the fight against terrorism. Even President Pervez Musharraf advocates a pact with the Taliban in order to end the insurgency.

But, Mr. Karzai has blocked the appointment of Paddy Ashdown. The role assigned to him of improving coordination or civilian reconstruction and provide political guidance to the NATO-US military campaign was too much for Mr. Karzai to stomach. He felt this smacked too much of the return of a British colonial viceroy. The Afghan Government resents being bypassed. The task of bringing about coordination among various agencies operating almost independently and chaotically, is a difficult one. Lord Ashdown is a forceful personality and his presence on the scene would have led to a clash of egos and complicated the already messy situation.

Mr. Karzai was also annoyed by British moves to win over some Taliban and offering them military equipment if they would join the fight against the terrorists. He expelled a British and an Irish diplomat from Afghanistan for hobnobbing with the Taliban, instead of fighting them. The British are also under attack for wrongly advising Karzai to sack the Helmand Governor Sher Mohammad Akhundzade, widely regarded as brutal, corrupt and involved in the drug trade. After being removed, he made peace with the Taliban and facilitated their stay in the province to battle the British soldiers stationed there. Mr. Karzai regretted having listened to the British, which had worsened the situation in the southern province.

On the ground the Karzai Government has proved incapable of combating widespread corruption, providing good administration, combating crime and burgeoning drug trade. This has eroded public confidence in the government, which has failed to provide security, livelihood and development. Mr. Karzai blames the international community for under-estimating Afghanistan's needs. The country's problems were compounded not only by the need to combat insurgents, drug lords and their private armies within the country but also to guard the border with Pakistan against escalated Taliban incursions, with little sign of Islamabad succeeding in destroying the Al Qaeda and Taliban bases in the country for ever. The US and NATO have made long-term commitment to stay in Afghanistan and prevent it from again becoming a base for international terrorism. But, this commitment is also now waning, with many countries having second thoughts about their continued involvement on a long-term basis and some wanting to limit their duties to non-combat roles.

But, for the common Afghans, life is getting worse by the day. The humanitarian situation is deteriorating and people continue to suffer on account of growing insecurity, violence, unemployment and shortages of food, fuel and housing. The fighting in the southern provinces has rendered some 80,000 people homeless, with civilian casualty rate also having doubled during the past year. The international forces operating in Afghanistan insist that the only problem is external -- the continued supply of Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists from Pakistan. The US is doing precious little to tackle the problem at the source and relies mainly on Pervez Musharraf's assurances that military action is being taken in Waziristan. But incursions into Afghanistan continue and the US-NATO forces are mainly engaged in damming the flow. This is an unending assignment entailing great costs in terms of casualties and human misery.