Friday 20 December 2013

12 Years On and What Have We Achieved in Afghanistan?

With the departure of troops from Afghanistan intended for 2014 and David Cameron’s recent trip to Camp Bastion to declare, or rather infer, ‘mission accomplished’ it seems Afghanistan is finally over.

Yet, the media was quick to draw parallels between G. W. Bush’s speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on Iraq in 2003 due to their disbelief that coalition forces have managed to secure any of their objectives. They were not far off the truth.

Soldiers appear bemused?

The objectives were to:

Disable Al Qaeda

Yes, Mr. Cameron you have the right to fist bump the air as Coalition forces did disable Al Qaeda within their area of operations. However, Al Qaeda typifies a new form of actor on the international stage, one that does not have a set piece of land. Therefore, capturing a certain town or a capital will not destroy it as it is the ideology and the people which embody the organisation. To destroy this it will take localised actors, a shift in ideology or a reconciliation process. None seem likely.

Disable the Taliban

Driving the Taliban from Afghanistan is difficult. The Taliban, like Al Qaeda, are now partially removed from a certain spatial space. Yes, you can predominately find them in the south of Afghanistan but that is simply because they are predominately Pashtun and gain support from Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan presents another issue as the Pashtun constitute the majority within the northern regions. This makes it easier for Taliban fighters to cross the border but coalition troops cannot as it violates the independent statehood of Pakistan. Finally, the villagers are reluctant to inform on the Taliban as they fear reprisals as Coalition forces wind down their processes.The Taliban’s Qatar office which was seen as an embassy for a government in waiting accentuates the point. Likewise, when Coalition forces arm villager defense forces against the Taliban they often end up being shot by the same weapons they gave out the week before.

The belief that the Taliban are slowing their attacks or waiting till Coalition forces pull out is unfounded. We just are not hearing about the attacks because it is the Afghan National Army that are taking the brunt of the fighting.

This article by the BBC talks in-depth about village defense forces and the arguments for and against them.

Ahmadzai tribesmen
Militias have had little success. Credit: BBC

Additionally, more Taliban attacks have started to occur in the Western and Northern areas of Afghanistan which are typically seen as safe areas for the Karzai government. It is likely that the Taliban are trying to suggest that Karzai has a lack of control over the whole state. He personally agrees, stating that:
“The entire NATO exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life, and no gains because the country is not secure.”

There goes the whole ‘mission accomplished’ rhetoric… put your fist down Mr. Cameron.

(Important to note that when I refer to the Pashtun I am not stating they are all Taliban but that the Taliban are mainly of Pashtun or external origin).

Drug Prevention

This seemed to be an objective at the beginning of the campaign however it has declined as this year saw a bumper crop of poppies in Afghanistan. 6000 tons, the biggest since the invasion began, was harvested.

Conversely, Afghanistan’s 2000 drug eradiction program under the Taliban was highly effective with production falling to 185 tons in 2001 compared to 3300 tons in 2000.  It was even acknowledged at the October 2001 session of the UN General Assembly though since the war started the Coalition has been keen to distance itself from this.

Yet, the reduction in opium did have detrimental outcomes for the farmers as they struggled to feed their families. Wheat needs more water and earns no money until it is sold. The opium trade gave the money up front.

See this article for more information.

Create a stable and loyal Afghan National Army (ANA)

Yes, no, maybe?

Well some ethnic and political faction leaders have begun to revive their militia forces should the international drawdown lead to a major Taliban push to retake power. Successful? Erm, no?

This was illustrated in a November 2012 meeting organized by Herat leader Ismail Khan, in which he reportedly began taking steps to reorganize his Soviet and Taliban-era militia. Vice President Muhammad Fahim has also discussed potentially renewing the Northern Alliance force in anticipation of the need to assist Afghan government forces against the Taliban. And Uzbek leader Dostam is also reportedly trying to reorganize his loyalists in northern Afghanistan. These and similar moves could spark ethnic and communal conflict from an all-out struggle for power and a reversion to Afghan rule by faction leaders rather than elected leaders.

US forces training the Afghan National Army.

Do armies even work in a clan based societies?

Armies need to be centred on a shared common identity and a goal. At present the ANA comprises of Afghans from the North with the goal of fighting the Taliban south. The title is misleading as it is not a national force, rather what resembles the Northern Alliance with a few new toys courtesy of the coalition.

For a rather stimulating and patriotic history of the Taliban and what the Americans have done about it read this:
So moving on to 2014 about 8,000 to 12,000 American trainers and Special Forces will remain in Afghanistan alongside with 5,000 coalition forces. Clearly some way to go and that means that not all forces are pulling out. It is one of those "we said we would pull all the troops out but then..."

In the realm of international politics that is sort of understandable.

Provide proficient Aid

This article would not fit in to my blog if I did not discuss aid. But, it is kind of the same story again - I'm really noticing a trend.

The aid is going through the governments of Kabul and thus the people are being told what they need!
Only in 2008 did the UK gov ask the people what they wanted and were truly shocked by the answer that came back.


Basically, as per, see this Ben Anderson documentary on Afghanistan. There is also a more recent one entitled 'This Is What Winning Looks Like'.

And if you prefer to listen to all the arguments surrounding Afghanistan listen to reliable Ben talking to VICE. Good discussion on women rights and the views of a typical Afghan villager.

Thoughts welcome as always.

1 comment:

  1. Comments from Facebook:
    Jamie Hahn "I actually cannot believe Cameron's sudden celebratory attitude. We aren't even out yet, and the mission is certainly not over! Very good blog post buddy."

    Patrick Tettmar "That vice interview you linked is mindblowing."

    Ryan Soper "I think the forces realised a long time ago we were not going to win over afghan. All we could do was remove the taliban from power. If anything, look at the schools that have opened, the fact girls can for the most part now go to school. The fact that 80% of the ANP are actually policing things. That's a vast improvement to pre-invasion afghan."

    Chris Capper (Response to Ryan): To a degree I agree with the first two points Ryan. However, it will probably unravel if the Taliban regain power in the region. You can infer that from this article and the necessity for the swift signing of the BSA to protect that progression in human rights: http://www.tolonews.com/.../13037-human-rights-activists...

    Also, with regard to gender this is pretty damning, "In late March 2009, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed into law an internationally condemned "Shia Family Law" which condones apparent spousal rape (in Article 132), child marriage and imposes purdah on married Afghan women. Although the offending legislation is said to have been dormant for a year, President Karzai was trying to gain the support of Afghan northern Shia legislators and the neighbouring Islamic Republic of Iran, which is Shia-dominated."

    Likewise, have a look at the Ben Anderson documentary for some pretty damning stuff on the ANP. They have done well considering the circumstances but there is still a long way to go.

    Fraser Reid: we were trying to drag a country from the 15th to the 21st century by shooting it. it wasn't going to happen overnight. while we won tactical victories we lost strategically. much of the blame for that can be placed on Pakistan trying to play both sides against the middle (think of osama being next to their sandhurst), we could never achieve our aims in Afghanistan while our attentions were directed elsewhere (Iraq). Admittedly we defeated al-queda in Afghanistan but as you say they aren't a country and keep popping up every where the only way we can beat them is by being idealalogically better than them. You can't kill an idea but you can certainly be better than it (im looking at you sergeant blackman...). we could never win in afghan when no one in our army spoke pashtun. its mighty difficult to win hearts and minds when you can understand each other it becomes impossible when you have nothing in common. there are a thousand and one reasons why Afghanistan was a failure but none of them will ever be properly admitted as it is not politically useful to do so.

    But not all is doom and gloom there have been gains the people do have more freedoms now than they did in 2001 and im sure the poppy crop could be used to make morphine (its an opiate right?)

    ReplyDelete