• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
01.02.2010

AFGHANISTAN: PARTIAL CLARIFYING OF THE STRATEGY

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

The logic of the global policy is mostly conditioned by the developments in South Asia. So it is not surprising that on December 1, 2009, the address of the US president Barak Obama at the military academy at West Point devoted to the Afghanistan issues was at the centre of attention of the analysts and the journalists.

President’s decisions. The key items of Barak Obama’s address are as follows:

  • The terms of the US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan were set: it is supposed that this process will start in July 2011.
  • At the same time it is supposed to defeat and rout al-Qaeda1 before the withdrawal of the troops to protect the US and its allies from terrorist. With this purpose president Obama signed a decree to dispatch to Afghanistan 30 thousand additional troops and to help strengthening Afghanistan security forces in order they could fight the Taliban.
  • Alongside with the withdrawal of the troops it is supposed to pass the reins of government to the Afghani authorities and to start negotiations with the so-called “moderate Talibans” in order to calm down the situation.
  • The importance of Afghanistan and the necessity to keep on working with that country were especially mentioned.

The commentators mention that the Afghani “road map” of the US president in its essence resembles the programme on withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq. At the same time the claiming of the terms of the troops’ withdrawal at some extent brings to the conclusion that new US “relaxation” policy2 continues and in this context the address pursued definite propaganda goals.

Propaganda elements. It is remarkable that while speaking about 9/11 and the reasons of war in Afghanistan and those who are guilty of that the US president alongside with al-Qaeda and Taliban mentioned the USSR. According to Obama al-Qaeda came to power in Afghanistan after the war conducted by the Soviet Union in 1979-1989. Meanwhile it is known that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Landen were “created” by the American and Pakistani special services in the last period of war against the Soviet army when there were no doubts about the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The fact that the president touched upon the USSR is simply conditioned by the fact that at present in mass media often a comparison is made between the wars of the USSR and USA in Afghanistan. Particularly, some commentators present the data of the western sociological agencies according to which Afghanis considered president Najibullah (the later was a Soviet protégé and had governed the country just for 6 years after which he was overthrown by mujahidin in 1992 and in 1996 he was executed in Kabul) their best leader in the 20th century. It is not surprising because the Soviets besides the severe military actions had also carried out large-scale economic and educational programmes and that is why the parallels between the USSR and USA are not always to the favour of the later. But in both cases it should be mentioned that both super-powers met severe resistance in that peculiar country.

Situation in Afghanistan. In his address the US president considered the situation in Afghanistan as rather hard: Afghani fighters are dominant in 11 provinces of 34 and just from military point of view the developments are very problematic for the US-NATO military forces. It is characteristic that Obama mentioned that despite the negative tendencies Afghanistan yet could not be considered lost for the United States and this describes the American understanding of the issue.

The forecasts of the special services are also pessimistic. According to the former CIA Station chief in Kabul and ex-vice-chairman of National Intelligence Council Graham Fuller the plans of Obama to reach the military dominance and then to leave Afghanistan “softly” are almost unrealizable, and the new troops dispatched there would only protect the military units which had already been there. Fuller, the author of “The Future of Political Islam” book and one of the best experts of the region, believes that there is no way to reassure Pashto that “the Americans are friends and the Taliban is the enemy”.

The new Commander of the US and NATO military contingent in Afghanistan General McCrystal assesses the current situation as very hard and demands for 80 thousand additional soldiers; as we know consequently it was decided to send to Afghanistan 30 thousand soldiers. But taking into consideration the fact that there are already about 70 thousand soldiers in the country and the number of the national Afghan army is about 100 thousand it should be stated that the number of those who are involved in the military actions against Afghan fighters has already exceeded the one it was in 1979-1989. Let us mention that in Afghanistan, just like in Iraq, there are a number of companies providing security, services, connections and communications with rather shadow stuff working on outsourcing bases.

Further to the military issues the political situation in the country is also rather anxious. According to information sources president Hamid Karzai after being “re-elected” and strengthening his hand began to demonstrate more independent behavior. In his statements he expresses the idea that it is impossible to score a success only by military means and he tries to conduct more realistic policy. Particularly on December 3, 2009 in his interview to AP agency Karzai expresses the intention to find common points with the spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Mohammed Omar.

As we have already mentioned today, such a policy is accepted in Washington but the impression is that the US administration is against such processes to go without its strict control. As a result, the traditional American “restrictive” mechanisms are being used against Karzai: in authoritative American publications today one can often meet materials where president Karzai and his high-ranking brother are accused in being involved in drug traffic and various corruption actions, as well as the results of the presidential elections are questioned. As it is known the compromised allies are more obedient.

At the same time in such a situation the resentment is fermenting not only in Afghanistan but also in their domestic political field.

Public mood in the United States. According to public opinion polls, today 51% of the Americans believe that it is not rational to spend so much human and financial resources on the war in Afghanistan as the US does. About 42% are against sending additional troops to Afghanistan and only 26% supports that decision.

It should be noticed that the post-crisis situation boosts the formation of the pessimistic attitude in the US. It is suffice to mention that the budget deficit in 2009 was $1.4 trillion, and the national debt reached almost fantastic level - $12 trillion. Let us add that the budget of the Pentagon for 2010 is $636 billion, and it will cost the taxpayers additional $3 billion, i.e. $1 million will be spent on one soldier annually.

In the circumstances concerned, in order to finance the war in Afghanistan some American law makers offer to raise the taxes by 1%. Such projects, of course, are not accepted enthusiastically in the American society. At the same time a number of experts prove that available means are not always spent in the optimal way: some facts appear in the information field that the considerable part of the humanitarian aid sent to Afghanistan is appropriated by the Taliban. In order to compensate the scanty general resources in some way today the American administration tries to “internationalize” the issue.

Internationalization of the issue. Information agencies mention that on the days preceding the address Obama had talks with his British, French and Russian colleagues. The US aspires to present the situation in Afghanistan as an issue important for the international community and to involve other countries in military and political developments. At the same time the situation in South Asia turned into a matter of concern for the countries of the region and the prospects of the withdrawal of the Americans from Afghanistan causes even more anxiety. But each of those countries reacts to the issue in its own way.

Chinese who regard South Asia as the “territory of their national interests”, successively reinforce their presence in Afghanistan. Today “China Metallurgical Group” Corporation develops Ainkan copper mine not far from Kabul. The cost of the works is about $3.4 billion which is the largest investment project in Afghanistan today. In the opinion of the director of the Central Asia and Caucasus Institute Frederik Star, the US and NATO together carried out preparatory works in order China conquer Afghanistan economically. It should be added that judging by the materials in the mass media China is not going to restrict itself to mainly economic plans.

There are some steps made by India as well: besides the “soft” tactics (the construction of the parliament building in Kabul, extending cultural contacts and etc.), Delhi also proposes to reinforce defence of the northern and western borders of Afghanistan. It is obvious that the main concern is the protection from the radical Islamists. Most probably that Russia should also have such concerns and using its partially preserved possibilities in Afghanistan it has to try to create buffer zones in the border areas of the Central Asian countries.

All these testify that there is a tendency to shift Afghanistan issue from the global plane and turn it into the regional issue. If this tendency is materialized and the countries of the region start to play key roles in the solution of the issues then it would be the only chance somehow to regulate extremely chaotic and explosive situation in South Asia.

1The names “al-Qaeda” and “Taliban” are a bit conditional: the fighters struggling against the US and NATO are not unified on any spiritual and ideological base and represent different tribal and ethnic groups.

2The awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to the US president (a little hasty) is, at some extent, a component of the information provision of that policy.


Return
Another materials of author