Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "NATO is Trapped in Afghanistan"

NATO is Trapped in Afghanistan

Marek Swierczynski: The Georgian war diverted the world’s attention from Afghanistan. But events on the ground, implications of the conflict in the Caucasus and political turmoil in neighboring Pakistan make imminent the perspective of NATO snared in a war that cannot be won. A new strategy is urgently needed.

While we've all been busy watching the Georgian-Russian war developing, the situation in Afghanistan has slipped dangerously into more chaos and bloodshed. NATO's secretary general warned late July that the country is in a critical state, but his words were soon forgotten amid the frenzy of diplomatic efforts to end the Caucasus war. Russia's relations with the West chilled abruptly and a crucial ally in the Afghan struggle was almost lost, or at least will be much more reluctant to help.

But adding fuel to the fire, Gen. Pervez Musharraf resigned from Pakistan's presidency, a move that - if anything - will bring more havoc to the already uncontrolled border areas. NATO and the US forces hardly cope with the creeping insurgency there - or assymetric war as it is described. The ISAF mission failed to reach the critical point of success and - as the secretary general stressed - is in trouble.

The ISAF commander, General McKiernan, has recently described Pakistan's ISI secret services as enemies of the Afghan state. Musharraf's departure will not make things easier for the general. A surge - like the Baghdad one - isn't an option either. There are 80,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan currently - both under US and international command. Given the size and geography, how many soldiers would the commanders need to secure the country? Unoffically, the military speaks of about 400,000 - a number so unrealistic that couldn't be discussed. Even a half of that number would be difficult to imagine for the force-generators.

Killing guerrillas isn't a solution to win a guerilla-war, because when one of them falls, two or three or ten new join the fight, often with more anger, more extremist propaganda and more cruel methods. You must win back the support of the locals and offer them a better deal. This is where NATO and the US did not produce a clear strategy, and have not achieved any significant progress. The main goal two years ago was to cut down the opium production, as the main source of money for the Taleban. But the alternative offered for the local population wasn't attractive enough or not feasible. The numbers gathered by international agencies show that opium production is still on the rise and hitting record volumes.

If bombs and bullets cannot stop this war, maybe it is money that can. A coalition of the world's biggest donors and financial aid providers has already proposed to solve the Afghan problem. But are we ready to buy out two large countries at once?

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

August 26, 2008

Levan Nadiradze

I like this comment! What's this?

Probably you have already heard, that Zamir Kabulov, who is Russian Ambassador to Afghanistan, says that agreement to give corridor to NATO is no longer valid because Russia suspended military co-operation with Nato.

He also hinted, that Russia will "advice" Central Asian countries to suspend co-operation as well. And that NATO/US bases would have to move from there (Tajikistan etc...)

He also said that Russia do not want NATO mission to fail in Afghanistan, but Russia will be the last, who would feel sad about. (todays "Time")

August 26, 2008

Ari Rusila, Freelancer, Platinum Contributor (187)

I like this comment! What's this?

United States Foreign policy during last decades could be described as series of strategical errors. When Soviet Union splintered, the US saw possibility to widen its influence through breakaway republics and former satellites, do whatever want in the rest of world and feed her powerful military-industrial complex. Supporting on one hand nationalist/populist leaders (Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo) and with one hand elsewhere dictatorships (Asia, South & Middle America); making alliances with terrorist groups (Al Quida, KLA) shows that the aim was only reach short term tactical gain. Attacks to Serbia and Iraq were made on base of fabricated information/propaganda and probably also the intelligence from Afghanistan was not better.

All above mentioned has now lead to polarization of world and confrontation between Russia and the US. When the US has acted (lunatic style) as one's own discretion one effect is that UNSC has been guided to sidetrack.

I see that the only way out from today's confrontation is that the Great Powers start dialogue from empty table with equal basis, one output could be the restoration of UNSC as a forum for global conflicts. The global challenges e.g. environment, poverty, 3rd world conflicts etc.are so big that no individual power can solve them. These challenges should be top priority, not short term wins of private armies, military industry and shortsighted politicians.