The American war in Afghanistan

Pakistan OBSERVER, Tue, Jun,26, 2007.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Even after the passage of more than five years that are studded with innumerable rebuffs, many Americans and their allies earnestly believe that the war in Afghanistan is winnable. Is the war in Afghanistan winnable? To analyze the American optimism, one needs to critically review the factors that are generating this optimism and those that are making it extremely difficult to reach the desired goal. 

Unless and until serious considerations are given to the factors that are and would continue to impede progress, the war is going to be a long drawn pursuit. However if ample attention is extended to the factors spelled below, the chances of success would indeed multiply though even then no assurances of victory can be given. To begin with one must understand the two major aspects of war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan is waged against two targets; Al-Quada and Taliban. 

Among the factors that are effectively arresting the progress in Afghan war especially against Al-Quada terrorist include the inability to define what is terrorism and who is a terrorist, lack of comprehensive approach in the war, ready acceptance of biased version of events, not much emphasis on money trail, and scant effort to remove the root causes. While Talibans are viewed as partners of Al-Quada terrorists, the additional factors that are assisting the resurgence of Taliban include inefficiency of the incumbent Afghan government, massive corruption, deteriorating law and order situation, highhandedness of War lords, widespread drug trade and presence of the foreign troops which are not united to take combat action against the Talibans. 

Despite the inability of international community to evolve an agreed definition in a comprehensive sense, covering all the disputed areas and weaving a net of varied interpretations, the war against terrorism started following the formation of international coalition against terrorism. The outcome does not seem very impressive. So far the war against terrorism or what has been projected, as terrorism has not produced impressive results. On the contrary the way the problem has been targeted; it is having adverse effects rather then the desired and visualized containment. The ugly reality is that the activities of terrorists have received unintended impetus and the canvass of terrorism appears to be expanding. 

The main reasons for international community’s inability to quickly contain terrorism seem to be six. First, the significance of an agreed definition should have been fully realized which has, so far, been underplayed. Just stressing that any act that involved the death of innocent civilians is a terrorist act does not cover all facets of terrorism. In the absence of agreed definition, it is becoming a common practice to declare the targets such as individuals, groups and even a nation as terrorist. 

Second, the war against terrorism should not have started before making a clear distinction between a genuine political movement or a genuine freedom struggle and terrorism. Most of the existing political movements and freedom struggles have a long history. None of them started in the 21^st century. What is perhaps intriguing is that these freedom movements are gaining momentum in democratic countries and the authorities in these democracies are employing state terrorism as an instrument of state policy. The Kashmiri and the Palestinians freedom struggles along with many others are too well known to be dubbed as terrorist movements. 

The third factor that is effectively impeding the desired outcome of war against terrorism is the ready acceptance of prejudiced versions of the situation. While it is possible that a strong and powerful state would get away even with a prejudiced version of the situations at least temporarily, the real facts often become known in the long term causing the advent of realistic assessments. Since the existing nature of the nation state system is such that nations tend to judge the prejudiced versions in congruence with the dictates of their own national interests and make the decision for acceptance or rejection. Therefore it is imperative that efforts be concentrated on securing realistic assessments by making a comparative analysis of information collected from varied sources. 

Undoubtedly the fourth and perhaps the most important factor that has been so far ignored is the causation aspect. What causes terrorism? Injustice, deprivation, denial of legitimate rights in a comprehensive sense, excessive use of force are few developments that often give birth to undesirable violent approaches. A concerted effort to effectively deal with causation aspect could put war against terrorism on the right track. 

The fifth factor that has complicated the process of combating international terrorism is the use of word ‘combating’. Combating is a charged word connoting some form of military approach. The menace of terrorism can best be handled through a comprehensive approach, which may include military as well, as non-military approaches. If only military means are employed which may even result in increasing success, it would only force the terrorists to shift to soft targets. The sixth factor that could provide enormous help in dealing with the problem how to eradicate terrorism revolves around chasing the sources of funding to terrorist organizations. Since the money trail is viewed as a long and rather difficult approach, not much has been undertaken in this regard. Drying the funding sources could strike a deathblow to the terrorist organizations. Among the additional factors that are sustaining Taliban movement and impeding effective progress in war revolves around the continuous heavy dependence of Afghan administration on drug barons and warlords. Neither is proving to be assets to the incumbent government.

The drug barons are reported to be extending financial support to both members of incumbent administration and Talibans. This is not surprising as most businessmen bet on various parties within a state with aim to protect their business. The inefficiency of the incumbent regime along with rampart corruption has further complicated the situation. Its inability to accelerate the developmental work and to create employment opportunities have even dissuaded those Afghan refugees who were keen to go back. In fact some refugees who left Pakistan enthusiastically to settle down in their ancestral areas decided to go back to camps in Pakistan. 

Another important factor that is constraining the ISAF/NATO efforts is its inability to utilize all of the contributed forces to wherever they are needed on one hand and availability of limited forces on the other. Out of 37 NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan, only six (US, UK, Holland, Canada, Romania and Estonia) have permitted their forces to be deployed in combat zones.  Compared to total number of NATO troops in Afghanistan which are less than 50,000, Iraq has more than 150,000 US troops while Afghanistan is larger than Iraq. 

While there are some who enthusiastically claim that they can win in Afghanistan and see the victory on the horizon but they also recognize that they don’t have means to reach there. This clearly implies that the war in Afghanistan is indeed going to be a long affair.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.