NATO leaders meeting at the Lisbon summit last week reaffirmed their resolve to “finish the job” in Afghanistan and ruled out leaving the country “prematurely”. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon put it out most clearly when he said it for everybody: "We must be guided by reality, not schedules."
The declaration comes as no surprise despite rising casualties and ever louder criticism of the futility of war in several NATO member countries, some of whom have already decided to stop further participation in the war. Those who were interpreting US President Obama's aim of starting a troops pullout some time next year will have to readjust their sights.
The Lisbon deal signed between NATO and Afghanistan envisages a phased withdrawal of NATO security forces by the end of 2014 with the proviso that if ground reality necessitated they could remain there well beyond that date. NATO secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen spelled it out unambiguously, when he said he and Afghan President Karzai had signed an agreement for “a long-tem partnership” that will “endure beyond our combat mission”. A sobered President Karzai, who had recently criticised NATO's nightly-drone attacks on al-Qaeda targets in civilian areas, only said: “The realities on the ground were substantially understood and agreed upon by our partners.” He had been reminded in no uncertain terms by German Chancellor Angela Merkel that NATO attacks had to continue in order to produce results."We all want to reduce civilian casualties, but we need to keep the pressure on."
President Obama too was guarded, when he said at the end of the summit: “Cetainly, our footprint will have been significantly reduced but beyond that, you know, it is hard to anticipate exactly what is going to happen.” He was no longer putting at the front next year's start of the drawdown of American troops, though a bit of that may well take place, like in Iraq, as a public relations exercise to placate US public opinion. General David H Petraeus, top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan who put his case in a closed door session, is well known for his aggressive but realistic military approach, including stepped up drone attacks. His strategy was criticised by nobody at the summit.
Military leaders believe that nine years into the war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, things were going well despite the high level of casualties. Some 650 coalition forces have been killed this year, by far the highest rate of deaths since the war began in late 2001, 40 per cent up on last year and double the rate of two years ago. Media pundits, however, in several Western capitals continue to be pessimistic at the slightest setback or propaganda blast from Taliban. A recent comment by the head of British armed forces, General Sir David Richards, that Taliban and al-Qaeda threat could continue for 30 years was twisted in headlines to mean that the West cannot defeat al-Qaeda. In fact, what General Richards was saying that the objective of the Afghanistan campaign was not a victory in the old style but a long and durable “containment” of Taliban forces, making sure that when the NATO forces drawdown reaches its peak target, the Taliban would not be able to recapture power. NATO withdrawal would not be total and would not leave a clear vaccum as happened last time after the exit of Soviet forces.
It has been repeatedly made clear that the 2014 deadline of NATO's military drawdown relates only to combat operations, while the supporting forces would continue to be stationed in Afghanistan for an unspecified time. And, if need be, even the combat role timeline could be flexible. This is the strategy set in operation by General Patraeus in Iraq, which will be repeated in Afghanistan. Nearly two-thirds of the US troops have been withdrawn from Iraq under this strategy, and despite all shortcomings and twists, Iraq is slowly struggling back towards normality in most parts of the country except in the central sector around Baghdad. Even in this epicentre of violence, a much-reduced volatility is clearly visible. That is the model for which Afghanistan is being groomed and the ground situation there is certainly not as fragile as the Taliban strikes from time to time and propaganda would like the world to believe.
NATO's programme of raising and training Afghan army and police forces is well on schedule. The Afghan forces have already reached a strength of more than 260,000, set to reach 300,000 next year. Hopefully, substantial numbers of international forces will be able to pull out gradually, leaving behind non-combat training missions.
Buttressing this hopeful scenario is the other agreement between the US and Russia, which provides expanded new supply routes from Russia and central Asia for NATO to Afghanistan. Besides facilitating the supply routes, Russia is joining hands to train Afghan pilots for helicopters and to sell more Russian helicopters for Afghan forces. The Russians have also struck a contract to repair old Soviet equipment left over from Moscow's own misadventure in Afghanistan. A sweet revenge upon the US, the main engine behind Soviet defeat in Afghanistan!
The Washington Moscow agreement also, emphatically and symbolically, reminds Pakistan that it is not fulfilling its part of the deal sufficiently to crack down on Taliban and al-Qaeda militants who frequently blow up NATO military trucks with impunity. Scores of NATO supply trucks have been torched in Pakistan while on their way to Afghanistan. Several convoys have been looted by Taliban militants capturing arms and materials to fight NATO forces with their own weapons. Western protests about Pakistan's inaction to stop such attacks have been met with double speak. Pakistani leaders from time to time have counseled patience, asking donors to consider the heavy odds facing Pakistan internally and externally. The so-called external threat, said to be emanating from India, is portrayed as monumental and existential. The US efforts to persuade Pakistan to think otherwise have failed so far with the US hesitant to push further. To some extent the US successfully persuaded Pakistan to transfer thousands of troops from the Indian border to fight the Taliban on the western flank but this persuasion continues to fall short of convincing Pakistan about peace and trade flow with India, the biggest single route to prosperity for Pakistan that could release its pent up energy to fight its real existential threat from Taliban which is bent upon tearing down the very edifice of Pakistan.
But despite frequent US pep talks and massive boosters of American and other Western aid, Pakistan remains the Achilles heel of NATO's war on Taliban and al-Qaeda. The sooner West resolves this Pakistani challenge the speedier the end of Afghan war.
By Subhash Chopra from London
Leave Your Comment