| Home | Blog | Ask This | Showcase | Commentary | Comments | About Us | Contributors | Contact Us |
Afghanistan as Obama's Iraq, or VietnamCOMMENTARY | February 21, 2009The international media tend to be pessimistic about Obama sending in more troops and are divided on whether their contries should send more also. By Lauren Drablier International commentators were quick to react to President Barack Obama’s decision to send an additional 17,000 American troops to Afghanistan. Many are skeptical and predict their governments will not send additional troops. In addition, many see no solution for Afghanistan and draw comparisons to the Soviet failure in the 1970’s and 80’s. They also claim that Obama is trying to recreate the surge in Iraq – and this too is seen as a grave miscalculation on his part. Commentary is critical of Obama and claims that he has made this “his war.” Some even go so far as to claim that it will become the next Vietnam. Bulgaria’s news agency, Focus, highlights the increasing violence and fragility of the situation in Afghanistan in Afghanistan: Slipping out of control: “Fatalities among Western forces, including British, went up by 35 percent while the civilian death toll climbed by 46 percent, more than the UN had estimated… “The military “surge”, say US officials, must be accompanied by significant improvement in governance with Mr Obama describing the Karzai government of being “detached” from what was going on in his own country. “The new US administration had indicated that it was prepared to talk to Iran about the Afghan situation and yesterday, Italy, which assumes the presidency of the G8 this year, said that Tehran would be invited to participate in a summit on Afghanistan. The Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said: ‘We want to consider how to involve Iran, not whether to involve Iran.’ “Meanwhile, eight years after ‘liberation’ and the fall of the Taliban, many Afghan people still lack basic amenities. Across the country 38 per cent of the population did not have access to medical facilities, with the figure rising to 44 per cent in rural areas.” West Australia Today breports that although that country has been a long-time advocate for increased focus on Afghanistan, the chance of success is very low in Fighting the 'good' fight: “U.S. President Barack Obama this week committed 17,000 additional troops to the conflict, warning that the situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating. Obama called on his allies, NATO countries in particular, to also commit further troops and resources. It is now likely Australia will be asked to do more in a war that is messy and very hard to fight. “Australia has nearly 1100 military personnel in Afghanistan, including special forces, a training and reconstruction unit and an RAAF detachment that controls half of the country's airspace. In the dangerous southern province of Oruzgan, Australian forces work closely with 1770 Dutch personnel who provide logistics, artillery and air support with jet fighter-bombers and helicopters. If the Dutch pull out most of their forces in 2010, as they say they will, Australia could be asked to take over command in Oruzgan with a much bigger force. “Defense specialists are convinced, however, that a call for more help is inevitable. Australia Defence Association executive director Neil James says Australia should be prepared to take over a lead role. “While the Government has insisted it has no plans to send more personnel, Fitzgibbon has set out four conditions that could change its mind: if NATO countries agree to increase their contribution; if a new plan guarantees greater progress; if there is strong strategic justification for doing more; and if the risk to Australian troops is acceptable. “Over the past year the Rudd Government has frequently chastised European nations for not increasing their commitments to Afghanistan. Fitzgibbon said after this week's NATO meeting: ‘I think you will find a number of those nations now prepared to do more.’ “In opposition, Labor adopted Afghanistan as the "good" war, while Iraq was the "bad" war, but experts now differ widely on whether the conflict is winnable and whether Australia should be there. There is wide agreement that whatever military commitment is made, it must be part of a properly resourced and coordinated civil, military and political effort. “One of Australia's most experienced soldiers, retired major-general Jim Molan, said this week that the West should get serious about Afghanistan or get out: "If we do not change the situation, the probability is that we will lose and the Taliban and al-Qaeda will control Afghanistan, instead of the Afghan people." “Jim Molan believes the Taliban and al-Qaeda can be defeated. He says a key to victory is to provide security for the population. Security forces must conduct offensive operations, must not be careless with the lives of Afghan people, must understand counter-insurgency operations, and must be united in their efforts, he says. “Australia should provide a mix of military and civil help to improve governance and rebuild the economy. “‘But Rudd probably knows that, even with a lot more troops, the chances of success in Afghanistan are very low indeed, and the risks to Australian forces there are relatively high.’” In Turkish army says no demands yet from U.S. for local military base, Turkey’s Hurriyet discusses the sudden decision to close U.S. airforce base in Kyrgyzstan and how this implicates Turkey: “Recent media reports have suggested that the U.S. may look at setting up a military base in the Turkish city of Trabzon as an alternative to the Manas base in Kyrgyzstan which is due to close later this year. “Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev signed into law on Friday the closure of the Manas air base outside the Kyrgyz capital, a key U.S. military supply base for Afghanistan, making good on a decision that shocked Washington. “Bakiyev’s announcement last month for the closure came after Russia offered more than $2 billion in aid to the struggling Kyrgyz economy. The government has insisted that Moscow did not set the closure as a condition. “Gurak also said the number of the Turkish troops could increase in Afghanistan, in line with the handover of the command of the Kabul Area Command to Turkey in August. “Foreign policy experts here suggest that U.S. President Barack Obama may have asked for more Turkish troops or other Turkish contributions in Afghanistan during separate phone conversations he had with Turkish President Abdullah Gul and Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan earlier this week. “Turkey currently has some 800 troops serving with NATO forces in Afghanistan, most of who are based in the capital, Kabul. Having the second biggest army within NATO and as the only Muslim country in the alliance, Turkey is uniquely placed to help.” The International Herald Tribune outlines the challenges to US-Turkey relations with regards to Afghanistan in Choosing where to stand: “The Armenian Genocide Act will soon be introduced in the U.S. Congress. With leaders in both chambers on-record supporting recognition of the Armenian genocide, this year the bill is likely to pass. “If the resolution is adopted, Turkish officials will protest vehemently. Ankara may even go so far as to block U.S. access to Incirlik Air Force Base in southeast Turkey. Incirlik has been a base for U.S. war planes since the first Gulf War. Today it is critical to supplying troops in Afghanistan and redeploying forces from Iraq. “Closing Incirlik would cause a major crisis in U.S.-Turkish relations. Nobody wants this to happen. The Obama administration is keenly aware of Turkey's strategic importance. It knows that Turkey is a valued NATO ally and partner in the fight against violent extremist groups. Turkish troops are deployed alongside U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Turkey plays a moderating role in Central Asia and is the terminus for energy supplies from the Caspian Sea to western markets. “But while Turkey is an indispensable ally, the onus for avoiding a diplomatic train wreck rests with Erdogan. He can preempt a crisis by initiating normalized diplomatic relations and opening the border between Turkey and Armenia.” Greece’s Kathimerini discusses Greece’s role in Afghanistan in Greece set to increase presence in Kabul: “Greece is set to make a modest increase in the number of troops it has in Afghanistan, according to sources, following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Poland yesterday. “Greece currently has less than 200 soldiers in Afghanistan but sources said the Defense Ministry would make a small increase to this number following yesterday’s meeting. It is thought the ministry is thinking of sending troops that will be able to help with administrative duties during the elections, as well as more doctors and nurses. A liaison team, which will act as a link between Greek troops and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), is also likely to be sent out. “Seven Greek soldiers will also be sent to help international forces at Kabul International Airport. Greek forces are due to take over the running of the airport in the spring next year, a task they have undertaken before. “Defense Minister Evangelos Meimarakis also made it clear that Greece is willing to continue to train Afghan soldiers here. But he also made it clear that Greece is not able to send many troops or equipment because of its own defense commitments.” The UK’s Economist highlights the challenges ahead for everyone involved in Boots on the ground: “Like the Soviet empire (and the British one before it), (America) has failed to understand that controlling Afghanistan is much harder than invading it. And like Soviet leaders, critics say, President Barack Obama is now reinforcing failure by sending thousands more troops to confront an insurgency organized from across the border in Pakistan. “Despite the weight of history and the yearly deterioration in security, American commanders remain convinced that the war is “winnable”. “In the short term, NATO hopes that with more Afghan units and extra American troops, perhaps helped by the possible short-term deployment of up to 10,000 more European forces, it will be able to secure enough of the populated areas in the restive Pushtun belt to ensure a credible presidential election in August. Commanders say the American reinforcements will be used to improve security in provinces surrounding Kabul, protect the ring road that connects Afghanistan’s cities and, above all, to reinforce NATO’s faltering effort in the south of the country. “This may lead to a rise in violence, at least in the short term. But commanders argue that, with more boots on the ground, they will have less reason to use the air power which has contributed to a sharp rise in civilian casualties and has raised tensions with the Afghan government “Few are predicting an Iraq-style improvement in security. The sanctuary enjoyed by insurgents in Pakistan gives them the ability to fight more or less indefinitely “Senior Americans say cross-border communication has improved, particularly in the east (eg, along the border with Kunar province), but some senior Afghans think this is a sham. They note that the most important havens—in Waziristan and in Baluchistan—are untroubled by Pakistani forces; Taliban leaders allegedly meet freely in Karachi. For one well-placed Afghan, “Pakistan is the political wing of the Taliban.” “One problem, though, is that the Afghan army cannot grow any faster because of a shortage of literate recruits for the officer corps. Another problem is money; Afghanistan is too poor to afford even the forces it now has. But Mr Wardak says that is the wrong way to look at the problem. As thousands more Western soldiers prepare to move into his country, he says: “‘Building, equipping and training the Afghan army is much more economical than the deployment of foreign troops.’” Pakistan’s The Nation, in Will Obama's strategy succeed in Afghanistan?sees no solution to the “Afghan death trap” and believes that Europe will not follow the U.S. this time: Within a few weeks of Obama's coronation it has become clear that he will be as aggressive and bellicose as his immediate predecessors G W Bush, Bill Clinton, the senior Bush and Ronald Reagan. After eight long years of Bush's futile War On Terror that destroyed the global peace, people were expecting that there will be a new tone in US war policy. The new tone is that the essence will not change at all, nor will the forms. United States cannot, by itself, resolve the mess it has created in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a matter of fact, Washington has never been able to solve its major international puzzles by itself, nor to fight its wars without calling in the help of others. Washington seems to be at its wits end trying to salvage what it still can from the pathetic bungling in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It hopes more troops will solve the problem, like it mistakenly believes that more dollars thrown at bankrupt financial institutions will solve its economic mess at home. It now is increasing pressure on NATO countries to chip in and send more troops into the Afghan death trap. At the same time, the military chief of US troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, General Petraeus echoed Biden's clamour for more NATO troops and ticked off a list of requirements for Afghanistan including more special operations forces, transport, attack helicopters, fixed-wing warplanes, medical evacuation units, military police, engineering units and trainers for the Afghan army and police. And mind you at a time, when the world is in the grip of the most serious economic slump. The question is; what the NATO members would do? Will they obey the new emperor in Washington, or will they finally realise the man has no clothes. The prevalent economic depression might as well induce caution. Most European governments are terrified of the political fallout from the current economic disaster and have called a meeting to discuss emergency measures. The political future looks very bleak. The European countries would be forced to make a choice between serving Washington or the people who voted them in. For almost 60 years, they have been serving the former. Now, they might be forced, for once, to do the latter. Afghanistan is the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world and efforts to create some kind of Central Asian Valhalla (the mythic heaven where Norse heroes, the Vikings live) would be catastrophic, because neither the US nor its NATO allies have that kind of time, patience, money and manpower. There is no military solution in Afghanistan and its adjacent tribal belt of Pakistan. As the old saying goes: "It is easy to reach and conquer Kabul, but there has never been a safe way back." This has been the Afghan history since the times of Alexander the Great. The Soviets learned it the hard way and the US and its NATO allies are facing similar mire in Afghanistan. It would, perhaps, be more prudent to stop hanging out in Afghan graveyards. They are, after all, meant for burials and not resurrections. In The ties that bind us to Afghanistan, Canada’s The Star depicts the dire situation in Afghanistan and believes that Obama has made this “his war” by sending additional troops: “Unlike Iraq, where the citizenry wants American troops out, Afghans know from painful experience that their nation can't survive on its own yet, that they remain terribly vulnerable to a resuscitated Taliban/Al Qaeda alliance. “But after repeated episodes of collateral damage, thousands of civilians killed – mostly by insurgents but also by western troops and in air strikes – Afghans don't smile at us so much anymore. They are disillusioned by false promises of security and reconstruction. “The NATO mission has been successful only in patches, Canadian troops better at securing Kandahar – if taking high casualties – than beleaguered British colleagues overwhelmed by violent opposition in neighbouring Helmand. “The multinational coalition has created a chaotic chain of command, clashing political and military agendas, poor integration of forces, and an unequally shared fighting burden. “Afghans aren't convinced NATO knows what it is doing, even while the Taliban enjoys only 15 to 20 per cent support, almost exclusively limited to the Pashtun south. “Perhaps an America led by President Barack Obama can salvage something worthy from this deteriorating situation. He's made Afghanistan his war, signing off on additional 17,000 U.S. troops while emphasizing diplomatic efforts. “Obama says he didn't "press'; Harper didn't say Canada is inflexibly averse. If asked, it would be immensely difficult for Canada to decline. “The U.S. doesn't need Canadian troops in the forefront – 2,500 troops, only some 800 of them in a combat role, won't make that much difference. But Canadians do know Kandahar inside out, a hard-won knowledge not easily replaceable. “But Afghanistan is not Iraq. The society is far more agrarian, actually medieval. Tribal allegiance often stretches no farther than the next compound. “There's no Sunni-Shiite split to exploit, no infrastructure, no oil riches. The Afghan army is still in its infancy. Al Qaeda is burgeoning. Both Pakistan and Iran are meddlesome neighbours. “But if the mission devolves only to the U.S., it will be even less popular to Afghans and less justifiable to the Arab world – though Afghans aren't Arabs. “Would Canada really abandon both Afghanistan and Obama?” The UK’s Telegraph believes that increasing troops in Afghanistan will “destroy Obama’s reputation” in Afghanistan is Barack Obama's Iraq - or Vietnam: “Barack Obama has taken the fatal step: he has made himself a war president, like George W Bush before him. Farewell, Prince of Peace. “Trying to occupy Afghanistan - like invading Russia - is one of those bad career moves that politicians should regard as strictly off-limits if they have any survival instinct. “The ultimate objective is said to be a deployment of 60,000 - enough to provide the Taliban with lots of targets, but hopelessly inadequate to garrison that inhospitable country. To put these figures in perspective it is worth recalling that the Soviet Union, in the decade 1979-89, lost 469,685 men in Afghanistan. “‘Afghanistan is still winnable,’ claims Obama (even the language sounds suspiciously defensive), ‘in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America.’ “America and its allies, like the Soviets before them, are being defeated in Afghanistan. The countryside is completely in the hands either of the Taliban or of warlords. Even the cities are now beleaguered: within the past 10 days suicide bombers have killed 27 people in Kabul and insurgents temporarily occupied the Ministry of Justice. “Why are the allies in Afghanistan? To stamp out the drugs trade, we are told, and to prevent the country becoming a base for attacks on the West. But the Taliban extinguished the heroin industry: only since the allied occupation has the trade flourished again. And what kind of terrorist attack can be planned against New York or London in Helmand Province that cannot as effectively be plotted in Waziristan, just over the border, which the Taliban now rules? Or in mainstream Pakistan? “Obama is committed to this futile conflict because he made a campaigning point during the election of offsetting his opposition to the Iraq war with his support for the Afghan debacle. Now Afghanistan is Obama's Iraq - and threatens to become his Vietnam.” In Obama sends extra troops to Afghanistan, Radio Netherlands does not believe the decision will increase Obama’s popularity and sees a conflict of interest for the Netherlands to increase the number of troops: “The troop increase is unlikely to increase Mr Obama's popularity in the United States. “It is also unlikely that there will be great public enthusiasm in Afghanistan for Mr Obama's announcement. An ABC-BBC-ARD poll earlier this month showed that while the majority of Afghans are in favour of a foreign troop presence in their country, only 12 percent rated their support for US military forces as strong. Twenty-five percent saw insurgent attacks on foreign forces as justified. “The Netherlands has around 1200 troops stationed in the southern province of Uruzgan. The present Dutch mission is due to come to an end by 2011, and the pressure from the US to send more troops is a source of concern and controversy in the Netherlands. The government has not ruled out sending a new mission in support of ISAF when the present one comes to an end.” The UAE’s The National sees no prospect for a military solution and believes that India and Pakistan are key players in the outcome in Obama has reframed the battle but not broadly enough: “By ordering a further 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan, President Obama might have given the impression of knowing how he was going to conduct the conflict that will dominate his time in office. But these 17,000 soldiers are really a sticking plaster, designed to stabilise a deteriorating situation. He does not intend to make the conflict his own Vietnam, sending more troops after every setback. “But with Afghan opinion, as ever, in favour of foreign troops leaving – a view reinforced by rising civilian casualties – it is clear that sending more troops is no panacea. “Whereas the Bush administration saw Pakistan as part of the solution, Washington now sees it as part of the problem – a country that needs fixing, not just cajoling. Now that both countries have been sent to the sick bay, Washington strategists are free to draw out the perceived similarities of their malaise. “But as the Taliban move closer to the capital, and set off suicide bombs at will, the comparison is becoming more apt. In some ways, the situation is worse. The Russians never had to contend with the mujahideen extending their control into the Soviet Union. The Americans, however, see a creeping Talibanisation of the Pakistani frontier region. “The prospects of a purely military solution are now zero. In Iraq the US turned the tables by signing up the Sunni tribes of Anbar Province to fight against the al Qa’eda interlopers in their midst. That is not an option in Afghanistan. The fusion of Pashtun nationalism with Islamism is too deeply embedded for there to be a chance in the immediate future to split off Pashtun tribes to fight for a discredited government. The interlopers in Afghanistan are the foreign troops, not the Taliban. “If Pakistan’s military is to join wholeheartedly in the fight against the Taliban they must be reassured that India will not take advantage of the situation. There must be some progress on the festering issue of Kashmir. Until that is achieved, Pakistan’s military will naturally put its own interests – the stand-off with India – above the interests of the US. Indeed, for years a bizarre calculus has prevailed: the greater the Taliban threat, the more money has flowed from the US to strengthen the Pakistani armed forces. This equation is not likely to lead to defeat of the Taliban. “After the failures of the Bush years, it is time for new thinking: the only realistic solution will involve putting the Afghan conflict in the context of a new vision for South Asia.”
|
|
