Wednesday, June 19, 2013


Commentary

Abandoning Afghanistan Is Not A Solution

Although more than 1,600 U.S. fatalities and soaring costs have made the Afghanistan mission unpopular with Americans, abandoning the nation-building effort altogether would be "fraught with danger."
Although more than 1,600 U.S. fatalities and soaring costs have made the Afghanistan mission unpopular with Americans, abandoning the nation-building effort altogether would be "fraught with danger."
TEXT SIZE - +
By Jamsheed K. Choksy and  Carol E. B. Choksy
Perhaps Afghanistan was never meant to become a centralized country with a civil society based on democratic norms.

Indeed, the American attempt since October 2001 to create such a version of the place, at the cost of more than 1,600 lives and $444 billion according to the Congressional Research Service, has proven inconclusive.

But simply abandoning the nation-building effort altogether is fraught with danger. What the U.S. must do instead is change its course.

Rather than continuing to try to force Afghanistan into a Western mould, U.S. policymakers should focus on reconstructing those aspects of Afghan society that once functioned well.

Such an approach may buck the current push for withdrawal, but it is the only way to achieve genuine long-term security and stability.

On June 22, U.S. President Barack Obama outlined the timetable for American disengagement from Afghanistan, saying that by 2014 "this process of transition will be complete, and the Afghan people will be responsible for their own security.”

The president is responding to the fact that most Americans have a hostile attitude to involvement in Afghanistan, as tracked by polls from CNN (63 percent in December 2010) and the Pew Research Center (56 percent in June 2011).

President Obama’s words acknowledge that Washington’s policies will now concentrate on seeking a negotiated settlement between warring factions rather than pursing armed victory over the militants.

Shades Of Vietnam

Yet retreating from the field will doom Washington’s attempts to shape a positive political outcome for its post-9/11 intervention in Afghanistan.
A complete U.S. pullout could end up forcing Afghan President Hamid Karzai to abandon the country as well.

Even if the Obama and Karzai administrations reach a deal with the Taliban, it is unlikely that peace will break out. An analogy to the final phase of America’s large-scale foreign adventure in Vietnam presents itself.

The Paris Peace Accords reached in October 1972 fell apart in the years that followed. In the end, after Americans grew weary of their 19-year war in Southeast Asia and pulled out, the U.S.-allied South Vietnamese government fell to Hanoi’s soldiers in April 1975.

Like the North Vietnamese during the 1970s, Mullah Omar and his forces seem to be biding their time while inflicting a costly toll upon the U.S. through asymmetrical warfare.

President Obama’s speech will make them even more confident and less fearful while leaving ordinary Afghans little option but to accede to the militants’ demands.

President Hamid Karzai will find local support harder to gain and may very well be forced to leave Kabul with the last U.S. soldiers in a chaotic scene that could resemble the fall of Saigon.

Fleeting Claims Of Progress

Yes, the Afghan security forces have grown by over 100,000 troops, as President Obama noted. Nonetheless, every day brings new reminders that Afghanistan’s fledgling government, bureaucracy, army, and law enforcement units remain ineffective and corrupt. Claims of progress against the Taliban invariably prove fleeting, too.

Washington, in short, has so far failed to create a functioning nation in Afghanistan or to stop the spread of militancy from its failed state.

Those goals will never come to fruition if the U.S. leaves too soon.

The elimination of Osama bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders may give Americans satisfaction but does not excise the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan. The only guarantee for that is the creation of a genuinely stable society there.

If Afghanistan’s problems are resolved, then instability in Pakistan will ebb as well, for it is tied directly to events across the border. So the security benefits will reverberate around the Indian subcontinent, in particular, and the world in general.

Decades Of Violence And Turmoil

Nine years may seem like a long time to wait for positive change. But this is a brief moment in historical terms. Afghanistan endured four decades of violence and turmoil even before the U.S. invaded the country in 2001.

First, Mohammad Sardar Daoud Khan’s coup in 1973 led to widespread political repression.

Next, the Saur Revolution of 1978 attempted to impose a Marxist-Leninist state by breaking up traditional tribal and religious networks.

The Soviet Red Army invaded in December 1979 to bolster its communist client in Kabul.

That 10-year occupation caused about two million deaths, while another six million people fled the country. The sociopolitical ties that had held Afghan society together were shredded.

A rapid U.S. withdrawal may encourage Mullah Omar and his ilk to re-emerge with a vengeance.
Even the Russian withdrawal did not calm matters. Instead it paved the way for a civil war between factions of freedom fighters. In September 1996, the extremist Taliban set up their Islamic Emirate and began dismantling civil society’s last remnants.

After the U.S.-led coalition ousted Mullah Omar and his Taliban fighters from Kabul and installed the new government of Hamid Karzai in late 2001, it did not take long for the seemingly defeated militants and their Al-Qaeda cronies to muster the resources for a renewal of civil war.

When the Karzai government failed to demonstrate that it was capable of providing leadership, security, and prosperity, the diverse ethnic and linguistic groups who inhabit Afghanistan began to succumb to separatism based on tribal lines.

As the Coalition’s provincial reconstruction teams soon learned through their experience in the field, much of Afghanistan consists of small-scale societies that are sometimes distinct to individual valleys.

For this reason, the Obama administration may not be successful in its current quest to “responsibly end these wars” if it moves too fast.

Plans for the departure of U.S. and international troops from Afghanistan must take into full account the need for local governance, stability, and sustainability. Otherwise, rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan is likely to prove a temporary measure that may one day have to be reversed when worsening conflict there eventually rebounds on the Americans and Europeans.

Yes, U.S. patience has worn thin, and the long and hard route to success now boasts little political appeal. It is entirely understandable that the Americans and their allies have tired of the casualties and the stubborn opposition.

U.S. Should Adjust, Not Abandon, Afghan Mission

But that emotional response clouds prudent decision-making. The U.S. also bears responsibility for the mess that Afghanistan is in. Washington armed the mujahedin and supported the spread of Islamism to counter communism, then installed the current government when groups there turned against the West.

Claiming victory and walking away because a few high-value terrorists have been killed will benefit only those who seek to turn Afghanistan back into a militant safe haven.

A pullout in just 30 months is too hasty a departure from a country lacking effective nonpartisan institutions, struggling to find a shared national identity, and under attack by radical ideologues.

Without the U.S. presence, the Taliban will return to power with a vengeance against all who oppose them at home and abroad. Yet even with continued American involvement Afghanistan cannot develop into a unified functional country unless reconstruction efforts focus on local concerns, aspirations, and traditions of governance.

The United States should adjust its effort in Afghanistan, not abandon it, by learning from people and events on the ground. That is the sole way to help make Afghan society viable again. Only then will the tide of war truly recede, militancy subside, and lasting peace arise.

Jamsheed K. Choksy is professor of Central Eurasian, International, and Islamic studies and former director of the Middle Eastern Studies Program at Indiana University. Carol E. B. Choksy is an adjunct lecturer in Strategic Intelligence and Information Management at Indiana University and CEO of IRAD Strategic Consulting, Inc.

The views expressed in this commentary are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments page of 2
    Next 
by: Oliver from: London
June 25, 2011 22:48
The total number of USA soldiers killed in afghanistan is some where between 11000 to 16000. The number you got on your report the USA was quating this number 8 years ago. ha ha.
In Response

by: Demetrius M from: Conus
June 29, 2011 17:11
Hey John Ali George Oliver (not sure the order of your name- just guessing you're all the same person).

Don't you find those numbers you give considerably high considering the US, for the most part, abandoned the Afghan theater from 2003 until 2009-10? Just by logic alone, wouldn't those number of American deaths be lower while the other Western nations higher?

Next time you troll, please consider more plausable lies instead of hyperbole. You may get a few more followers that way.
In Response

by: Donny
July 01, 2011 03:14
He must have been learning from you.

by: ali from: Manchestor England
June 25, 2011 23:28
The Number of USA dead is much higher than the one written in the report. Some people say as many as 21000 USA soldiers has died in Afghanistan but a more realist number would be around may be 13000 0r 15000

by: George from: London
June 25, 2011 23:31
The USA cannot afford to keep the cost of the war. the cost has so far reached well over 700 billion in afghanisan. And also the number of USA soldiers killed is much much higher. Around 16000 USA soldiers have died.

by: JOHN from: London
June 25, 2011 23:34
The cost of war is not affordable and also the number of the dead is much higher. Britian lost around 379 Soldiers and 1700 are seriously wounded. Which is a much smaller number but even on this count. The USA would be around 8000 dead and some 30000 injured. But many people say it is much higher.

by: AAziz from: Karachi
June 26, 2011 04:48
How true!

by: Raun from: Holland
June 26, 2011 15:09
The death figure is correct. Here is what I found.
Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan:
http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
http://icasualties.org/oef/
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/index.html
In Response

by: Master Troll
June 29, 2011 02:31
US soldier cost: $200,000
Taliban soldier cost: $200
To match the game 1 US soldier must kill 1000 Taliban soldiers.
Per 1,500 US deaths the US killed at least 1,500,000+1 Taliban soldiers. At this rate the US is surely winning by the year of 3495.

by: Mark from: Oxford
June 26, 2011 15:21
War costs quoted are correct.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf and also at http://costofwar.com/en/ (which gives a running tally).
The authors have done a good job laying out the pros and cons.

by: Jeff from: New Haven
June 26, 2011 15:45
Read online that road accidents kill 600+ people in Great Britain each year and 38000+ in the USA each year.
Costs from automobile accidents exceed $164billion in the USA each year.
Certainly makes for interesting comparisons with deaths and other costs in military combat vs road "combat" situations!
In Response

by: Master Troll
June 29, 2011 02:39
Road accident victims do not end up on the tax-payers' shoulders + $13 trillions in debt.

by: James Whitney from: United States
June 26, 2011 19:18
I am in the U.S. military and I can tell you that the number of U.S. dead is exactly what was published in the article. Where these ridiculous numbers are coming from is mystifying. My guess is anti-U.S. bias or very bad journalism
In Response

by: Master Troll
June 29, 2011 02:34
Also, the most pure and non-lying government of the world said that Saddam had WMD.
Yeah ... those anti-americans always lie. Just like in Vietnam we had only 1 casualty and they wrote at least 70,000.
In Response

by: Keith from: USA
June 29, 2011 21:39
1. Iraq did have WMDs. We know this because he used them on his own people.

2. Every secret service agency in the world who had a reason to know had come to the conclusion that Sadaam was continuing to develop nukes.

3. Tons of yellow cake (the product of nuclear enrichment) were found buried in the Iraqi desert.

4. Satellite images just before the war showed large trucks moving from Iraq to the same site in Syria that the Israelis later bombed. It was an open secret that the site was a nuclear reactor in construction.

5. When S. Africa declared it disposed of its nuclear program, they opened their files, allowed the UN to inspect freely, and permitted interviews with scientists throughout the country. In Iraq, they played "Where's Elmo" for ten years with the UN.

So I suppose the moral of your post is to always trust your local blood-thirsty dictator? You are using false information to support a completely unsubstantiated claim made by "some people."
In Response

by: Donny
July 01, 2011 03:13
lol. What a bunch of lies. Here is some truth:
American exports to Iraq, with the full knowledge and approval of the US government, included regular shipments of anthrax, botulism, West Nile fever, brucella melitensis, and other materials used in germ warfare. Other routine shipments included chemical warfare agent precursors, detailed plans for chemical weapons production facilities, chemical and biological warhead filling equipment, as well as delivery systems, missile production equipment and missile guidance systems.
WMD shipments from the US to Iraq continued long after the mass gassing of Kurds in Halabja, 1988; an incident which US intelligence blamed on Iran at the time, but the story was revised to make Saddam Hussein the evil-doer not long before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
After the 1991 Gulf war, Iraq dismantled its WMD programmes, in full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions. In December 2002, in a desperate bid to avoid war, Iraq's government released a 12,500 page dossier documenting the disarmament process. Unfortunately, the US government removed 8,500 pages of this report, leaving only 30% that the rest of the world was allowed to see. This was hardly surprising, since all five permanent members of the UN Security Council carry more blame for Iraq's WMD than Saddam Hussein himself. But the US holds more responsibility for arming Iraq than any other country.
In Response

by: Keith
July 01, 2011 22:54
Nice little story you cooked up there. Too bad its so off the wall, its downright insane. You might want to recheck the validity of your sources.

by: Larry from: Canada
June 27, 2011 23:07
It is refreshing to hear academics tell it like it is, however the article fails to give any “solution” other than to write that “abandonment” is not one of them. The authors predict, I think correctly, another Vietnam-type exit for the Americans and their allies with disastrous consequences for Afghanistan.

The authors invoke western-style guilt on the American reader and argue that it is the United States’ responsibility to protect the people of Afghanistan since the present insurgency is their fault in the first place; they armed the Mujahedin and encouraged the fight against the Soviet. Many Americans would dispute this and argue that their war is against Al Qaeda who attacked the continental United States, not against vicious rag-tagged rulers of a rag-tagged state.

The American people do not have the responsibility to protect all peoples of the world who are abused and murdered by their own rulers nor, as noted by other posts discussing the numbers of American dead, the stomach for it. . How did the Afghan mission end-state ever evolve/creep into this unattainable goal? Perhaps the authors’ rage needs to concentrate on the United Nations for it indeed does have that responsibility. But the usefulness of that organization is another topic for another day.
In Response

by: smorgan from: USA
July 12, 2011 03:41
I noted the singular lack of a plan or solid recommendations also... other than the US must do something... You can only do so much if the will of the people and the existing government isn't there...
Comments page of 2
    Next 

Most Popular