Subscribe to Desicritics
Afghanistan: What Next?
Vinod Joseph
The Americans bombed Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in retaliation for having sheltered those responsible for the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre. Since Afghanistan was already in the stone-age, having endured the Soviet occupation and a long stretch of in-fighting among various groups of Mujahideen after the Soviet departure, there wasn’t much to bomb, but that didn’t stop the Americans from dropping ordinance. Having paid the Al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taliban, back with the same coin, the Americans landed their aeroplanes on Afghan soil and set up bases with avowed intention of planting democracy in that part of the world. And that was the beginning of the current set of troubles.
When Obama campaigned for Presidency he sort of implied that Afghanistan was a just fight, though Iraq wasn’t. The upshot of that assertion has been an increase in the number of US boots on the ground in Afghanistan and a concerted effort to extricate from Iraq. Obama has also tried to get US coalition partners to commit more troops, but with the exception of the UK, no other country has been willing to do so.
In principle I agree that Obama is right in saying Afghanistan is a just cause – planting democracy in Afghanistan that is, and that Iraq is a good case for letting the locals resolve matters as best as they can. However, the ground reality is that Afghans have shown no great appetite for democracy. In a terrain bereft of democratic shoots or even roots, where most Pashtuns are either sympathetic to the Taliban or are the Taliban, the best foot the Americans have been able to put forward has been in the form of Hamid Karzai, a man who isn’t exactly a paragon of virtue.
As US and other coalition casualties mount in Afghanistan, Obama will be under increasing pressure to pack up and leave. My opinion of Obama has always been that he is a man of principles who also likes to avoid causing offence. A man who likes to please as many people as possible. If things don’t change in Afghanistan (and the Taliban show no indication of wanting to change), Obama might want to consider various options. And what could those options be?
1. It’s well known that Iran supplies funding and technology for Iraqi insurgents, especially Shiite insurgents. What is less well-known is that Iran also supplies weaponry to the Taliban, though they are predominantly Sunni and there is no love lost for Shiite Iran. The US could strike a deal with Iran whereby Iran is allowed to fulfil some of its nuclear dreams (without actually producing or acquiring nuclear weapons) and in return, Iran totally stops the flow of money and technology to Afghanistan. Iran might be allowed to conduct a nuclear test or two and Ahmadinejad will be allowed to strut and strike a pose in front of his people. Such a deal with make Israel very unhappy and there will always be the fear that if Iran is given a nuclear inch, it’ll take a nuclear mile. If this strategy is to work, Israel must not be allowed to attack any of Iran’s nuclear sites. Without Iranian support, the Taliban will suffer to some extent. However, as long as the border with Pakistan is not sealed, and it cannot be sealed, the Taliban will be able to breathe.
2. Supplement US troops with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia which are officially American allies, but are not hated by Afghans. I’m not sure how keen the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be to shed blood in Afghanistan. More importantly, by joining the Americans, they are likely to be tainted in the eyes of the Afghans. Of course, additional manpower will not do any harm to the coalition struggling to hold Afghan territory, but it will be very difficult and even expensive to persuade Indonesians and Bangladeshis to send troops to Afghanistan. If this can be achieved, the US might be able to get the necessary breathing space to carry out necessary reconstruction and build up the Afghan national army.
3. US troops can be replaced with soldiers from Islamic states like Bangladesh and Indonesia. If they replace the Americans rather than supplement them, the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will not look too bad in Afghan eyes. Also, people in Indonesia and Bangladesh might not resist the idea of sending troops to Afghanistan as much as they would if their soldiers are seen to be helping American troops. However, I am not sure how good a job the Indonesians and Bangladeshis will be able to do on their own. Without drones and hi-tech bomber planes answering calls for help within minutes, it’s unlikely that the Taliban can be kept at bay. In fact, if the Americans are replaced by Indonesians and Bangladeshis, there’s a very good change that the Taliban will be in control of Afghanistan very soon after the US departure. Of course, the US could give those weapons to the Indonesians and Bangladeshis and train them to use those weapons, but I doubt if the US would want to do that.
4. Persuade India to send troops to Afghanistan to help American troops. Indian soldiers will be hated as much as the Americans and may suffer as many casualties. In order to persuade India to put its soldiers in harms’ way, the US might ‘persuade’ Pakistan to accept the Line of Control in Kashmir as the international border and give up all claims on Indian administered Kashmir. US drones flying over Af-Pak might direct some of their fire over training camps for Kashmiri militants. Indian politicians might be able to sell such this solution to India’s population. However, this solution would be very unpopular in Pakistan. Any such settlement over Kashmir would be temporary and will last only as long as the Americans stay in the neighbourhood. China will not be happy with this, since a secure northern frontier will tilt the balance of power in favour of India.
However, in my opinion, if implemented, this plan has as much chance of success as supplementing US troops with Indonesians and Bangladeshis. By sheer numbers, Indian troops supported by US technology and troops will be able to keep the Taliban at bay. Let’s assume, this is maintained for a period of five years, until the next Afghan elections, by which time, a reasonably strong Afghan national army can emerge and reconstruction and redevelopment can be carried out. If the Afghans manage to elect a strong government in Kabul that is relatively progressive, stable and strong, Afghanistan might revert to the sort of peace it had when it was ruled by King Zahir Shah from 1933 to 1973. Though this option has a good chance of success, I just don’t see Obama even considering the possibility of seeking Indian troops for Afghanistan and siding with India on Kashmir.
5. The Americans and their allies could just pack up and leave, after declaring that their objective of brining democracy to Afghanistan has been achieved. After the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan on February 15, 1989, the Soviet protégé Najibullah managed to hold on to power for a surprising four years. The only reason why he was finally finished off was because of the enormous amount of Pakistani support for the Mujahideen. If the Americans were to just leave, just like the Soviets did, it is anybody’s guess as to how long Hamid Karzai will be able to hang on to power. The Taliban are bound to expand the territory they control – but will they be able to obtain sway over the whole of Afghanistan? In my opinion, they will, over a period of time. This process will be quicker if they can convince the Pakistanis to help them. To get Pakistani help, the Taliban must be willing to renounce any plan to capture power in Pakistan.
The ISI is mostly probably cursing itself for having allowed the Taliban to shelter the Al Qaeda. If Mullah Omar hadn’t permitted Bin Laden and his fellow nutcases to use Afghanistan as a base, no one would have given two hoots about Afghanistan. Pakistan would still have its ‘strategic depth’ in the west and Kashmir would be boiling. If the Americans were to pack up and leave, the ISI would want to just turn the clock back. Afghanistan would be run by the fundamentalist Taliban, while Pakistan would be modern and free from fundamentalists. This would be a dream ending for Pakistan, especially the ISI. However, would the Pakistani Taliban who currently control large swathes of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province be willing to give up their plans and either lead a quiet life or migrate to Afghanistan? Having tasted power, I doubt if Pakistani Taliban can ever be persuaded to give up their plans to capture power in Pakistan itself. They might pretend to do so for a temporary period till they capture the whole of Afghanistan, but sooner or later, civil war will return to Pakistan.
China will be very unhappy and uncomfortable if the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan. As long as the ISI had control over the Taliban, very little external support was available to Uighurs in China’s restive xinjiang province even though many Uighurs have fought for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Recently the Al Qaeda openly called for a holy war against China. The Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different entities. The Taliban are much more realistic. Will Pakistan be able to convince the Taliban to not support the Uighurs in China after the Americans vacate Afghanistan? They might be able to. It all depends on how quickly memories of the current rift fade and how quickly the clock is put back.
We currently live in a very interesting period in time. Let’s see how events in Afghanistan unfold.
Afghanistan: What Next?
RSS:
- Subscribe to RSS 2.0 feeds for:
- » Comments on this article
- » Politics
- » Politics: Asia
- » Politics: Bangladesh
- » Politics: China
- » Politics: India
- » Politics: Pakistan
- » Politics: Peace
- » Politics: Religion
- » Politics: South Asia
- » Politics: US
- » Politics: War
- » Politics: War on Terror
- » Desicritics.org articles by Vinod Joseph
- » All Opinion articles
- » All Desicritics.org articles
Ledzius
October 17, 2009
06:04 AM
I think Karzai will meet the fate of Najibullah and then everything will be back to square one.
commonsense
October 17, 2009
10:03 AM
Vinod Joseph:
"In principle I agree that Obama is right in saying Afghanistan is a just cause â€" planting democracy in Afghanistan that is,"
I have trouble believing how any adult can possibly swallow this line about "planting democracy" in Afghanistan is the mission...but then again, i did witness some democracy plants instead of bombs being strewn over the place.
Morris
October 17, 2009
02:21 PM
Democracy cannot be planted. It has to be evolved by itself. Planted democracy requires a lot of rain and feritlizer that even the US cannot afford.
I think Obama is wrong in saying that there is a just cause for this war. It was just so long as they were going after Bin Ladin. He has escaped and Taliban is no longer shetering him. And this is not their objective any more. By being there americans are helping the cause of jihadis exactly the opposite of what is good for them. They are hurting themselves, not helping.
lumbaKHUMBA
October 17, 2009
08:40 PM
Afghanistan is the world's largest tribal society(or is it second largest after the Kurds?) and they are just that, tribals. Leave the savages alone.
As long as they are not heavily armed...
bob
October 17, 2009
08:47 PM
"Leave the savages alone." choice words. well desicritics editors..what make you of this?
lumbaKHUMBA
October 17, 2009
08:54 PM
Dear Editors,
I apologize, please replace the word "savages" with "barbarians".
commonsense
October 17, 2009
10:09 PM
Vinod,
I understand that you are a professional "who works long hours"....do you really believe that the afghanistan tragedy is about "planting democracy"? I suppose you do, so I'm wasting y time!
Vinod Joseph
October 18, 2009
05:07 AM
Commonsense #2&7, it must not be forgotten that it was not Obama who took the US to Afghanistan. If 9/11 had taken place when Obama was in power, the US reaction would very likely have been different. May be the US would only have bombed Afghanistan and would not have tried to occupy it. George Bush most probably had colonial ambitions and wanted to discharge the ‘white man’s burden’ in Afghanistan. What Obama has inherited is an hornets’ nest and the US would really like to exit Afghanistan if possible, and as soon as possible, without destabilising the whole region. However, if the US were to depart just like that, the Taliban will take over the whole of Afghanistan in no time. Pakistan will start tottering very soon after. This means the US must stay on. How long do they plan to stay? Until they can leave. When can they leave? When they can do so without destabilising that region. And when will that happen? When ‘democracy takes root’ in Afghanistan. A democratic Afghanistan is one where the Taliban don’t have much support and where there is popular demand for democracy. An Afghanistan which will not destabilise the rest of the region, especially Pakistan, after the US’s departure. Therefore, when Obama talks of planting democracy in Afghanistan or empowering women in Afghanistan, what he really means is an Afghanistan that will be an American ally or at least, will not be a fundamentalist state.
Vinod Joseph
October 18, 2009
05:09 AM
Ledzius #1, there is a very good chance that you will be proved right.
commonsense
October 18, 2009
09:10 AM
Vinod:
"If 9/11 had taken place when Obama was in power, the US reaction would very likely have been different. May be the US would only have bombed Afghanistan and would not have tried to occupy it."
maybe. but you seem to place too much importance on an indvidual president...as if they have total freedom to start from scratch...you forget that Obama has inherited an american empire with over a thousand bases around the globe...an empire gearing up for an eventual day of reckoning with another would be challenger - China. And aware of the fact that access and control to sources of oil and gas is the key. When you have time, read this very short piece by Gary Wills, professor of history at Northwestern University in Chicag...published in the New York Review of Books. Not that he is correct, but certainly he offers a plausible viewpoint compared to visions of democracy, freedom etc. etc. The piece is titled "Entangled Giant" referring to the predicament of Obama. It's a short piece, just one page, so reading it won't take that long:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23110
commonsense
October 18, 2009
09:47 AM
Vinod Joseph:
"When can they leave? When they can do so without destabilising that region. And when will that happen? When ‘democracy takes root’ in Afghanistan."
this means only two things. there is no third option:
1. pure head-in-the-sandism, at its most dismal
2. forever, because "planting" democracy is not the goal of the Afghanistan misadventure.
Vinod:
"George Bush most probably had colonial ambitions and wanted to discharge the ‘white man’s burden’ in Afghanistan."
nothing whatsoever to do with the 'white man" or multicolored man...all to do with imperial geopolitical interests. india would probably do the same if in the same position of a hyper-imperial power as the US (our self-serving tripe about us being inherently whatever notwithstanding). Once we recognize that certain actions follow from certain perceptions of how the world might unfold and how it might endanger on'e imperial position or enhance it...a lot can be understood.
On the other hand, one can talk of the burden of promoting democracy, freedom etc. etc.
an interesting thought I leave you with: most of the 911 hijackers were Saudi nationals. During the anti-Soviet war, pretty much all the funds were for promoting jihadist islam including bin laden, was provided by the US. After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, much of the money for jihadist islam comes from Saudi Arabia. If "planting democracy" is the real goal (nobody really believes this, but 'if'), perhaps the Saudi Arabia would be a better location for the planting of democracy. There is the small problem of how one plants ANYTHING in a desert, but surely that can be taken care of with hdyroponics :)
commonsense
October 18, 2009
09:54 AM
Vinod Joseph:
"When can they leave? When they can do so without destabilising that region. And when will that happen? When ‘democracy takes root’ in Afghanistan."
you seem to accept that "they" will never leave...because there's the little problem of democracy and its "roots". then ensuring that the "root" is not left untended such that it can be attacked again by nefarious parasites...etc. etc. All this of course assumes that "planting democracy" is the real goal...which brings me to an expletive, so i will desist since Vinod you do not deploy expletives and you are a well-meaning person, despite the fact that you are clueless about the name of "the great game" in play Afghanistan.
commonsense
October 18, 2009
10:06 AM
hey, this is not just any old democracy in afghanistan, but a robust one! two elections for the price of one! a double bill. I was wrong; democracy has indeed been planted. when will all the outside forces pack up and leave?
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- With a runoff presidential election in Afghanistan appearing likely, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told CNN on Friday that she expects the current president, Hamid Karzai, to win."
commonsense
October 18, 2009
10:32 AM
from today's New York Times:
"Never deploy military means in pursuit of indeterminate ends"
Gordon M. Goldstein is the author of “Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam.â€
temporal
URL
October 18, 2009
04:13 PM
The Americans bombed Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in retaliation for having sheltered those responsible for the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Centre.
please google "unocal" "khalilzad" and "karzai"
also "taleban delegation"
:)
commonsense
October 18, 2009
04:25 PM
and for those who have no access to computers and hence cannot read this message, please see michael moore's "farenheit 911". and before you snigger at "liberals", just watch the snipped about the talban delegation being invited to the US by the then president, for "discussions" related to the oil pipeline...and threats that if they did not agree, they should be prepared to be bombed into the stone-age....- a fact that was not covered in the US media, but discussed widely in the European (oh those anti-american europeans) media...
commonsense
October 18, 2009
04:29 PM
i wish i could be a bit kinder, but have trouble believing how folks who have nothing to gain from the games of the powers that be, yes, folks such as Vinod, can be SO naive...
commonsense
October 19, 2009
09:23 AM
vinod's article is a bit like being offered tandoori chicken without the chicken...and that too, cooked in a non-tandoor.
Vinod Joseph
October 19, 2009
11:50 AM
Commonsense, what would you have me say? That Obama has always harboured grand designs for Afghanistan (just like Bush did), and that he continues to do so even now, that he is still hopeful of an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and that’s why he’s staying on.
Temporal, yes, prior to 9/11, a Taliban delegation did visit the US, and the US may have harboured colonial ambitions, but I find it difficult to believe that it still does.
temporal
URL
October 19, 2009
12:20 PM
thanks vinod:
i quoted the very first sentence of your article/premise
khair...:)
please read pepe escobar and his coinage pipelinistan to get at the (much) bigger picture
afghanistan is a mere pawn ...and they have got bogged down!
commonsense
October 19, 2009
12:52 PM
Vinod,
we are obviously talking past each other, which is not at all to say that i am right. my point is that dramatic policy shifts do not happen simply if somebody new, even from a different party, comes to power. there is something called "path dependency". if there is a single shift in policy, i would like to see some evidence of it.
meanwhile, you might want to scan thru this brief piece by Gary Wills, a mainstream american historian (as in, a raving "anti-american") at Chicago's Northwestern University. The piece appears in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books and is available online:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23110
Add your comment