Cagri Erhan JTW Columnist printable version send your friend message to author add comment ()

Saturday, 12 December 2009

BILLIONS WERE SPENT

The Taliban and al Qaeda would not exist today if 10% of the U.S. expenditure in the Afghanistan war was instead spent on the people of Afghanistan. But obviously, war equipment had to be used in order to keep their producers afloat.

While U.S. President Obama is sending additional reinforcements to the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, he is also contemplating the initiation of U.S. withdrawal in July 2011. Today, there are nearly 113.000 foreign soldiers in Afghanistan. When Obama calculates that number with the additional 30.000 soldiers, the Taliban will be annihilated and security will be established in Afghanistan. Obama’s calculation is wrong. NATO is experiencing the greatest failure of its history. Reinforcing the operation with 30.000 additional troops will not be enough to establish security and stability; however, it may be helpful for the realization of an “honorable withdrawal” in 2011. Since December 2009, Afghanistan is no longer a relevant issue for NATO and the U.S. From now on, the main objective is to withdraw with the least possible casualties.

In 1878, 35.000 soldiers were used by the British Empire to establish a temporary British rule in Afghanistan. However, this military presence was never enough to suppress the ongoing resistance that began in 1839. Britain, therefore, was obliged to accept the independence of Afghanistan in 1919.  

LITTLE CHANCE TO SUCCEED

When the Soviet Union in cooperation with the Babrak Karmal regime invaded Afghanistan, the total Soviet military presence in the country was limited to 115.000 soldiers. Ten years of Soviet invasion caused more than one million Afghans’ death. The Afghan Mujahedeen, who did not posses any tanks, helicopters or aircrafts, managed to force one of the most advanced military powers of its time, the Red Army, to withdraw from the region. After the Soviet’s withdrawal, Mujahedeen took control of Kabul, and the Taliban regime was established. The armed Mujahedeen resistance managed to defeat an army of 100.000 men with only 30.000 fighters. With the dispatch of 30.000 additional soldiers, Afghanistan will host the largest foreign military force of its history ever, after that of the Great Alexander’s conquest of Afghanistan. On the other hand, The Taliban and Al Qaeda members who are supposed to be eliminated are thought to have nearly 15.000 members around the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Most probably, the U.S./NATO forces will not be able to achieve what the previous ones couldn’t achieve either. This is because of the great disparity amongst the alliance on against whom, and for what purpose the mission is being carried out as well as the ethnic issues of Afghanistan, create great impediments on controlling the Taliban.   

We can analyze the level of disparity amongst the ally powers through their responses to Obama’s call for additional forces. While the U.S. considers sending 30.000 soldiers, the remaining 26 NATO countries consider sending a total of only 7.000 soldiers. Moreover, most of these countries do not consider sending their forces as combatants. There are two possible explanations of this situation: either most of the NATO members do not want to take an active part in this struggle, of which they do not know the objective, or they realize that a permanent victory is not possible.

Since there is a small difference between harming the Taliban and aiding them to gain more popular support, the U.S. has never been able to keep a sensitive balance since the end of 2001. The bombings carried out to destroy the Taliban that result in civilian casualties caused by military operations can unexpectedly increase support given to the Taliban. The support given to the Karzai Government by Western states as the “best of a bad lot” diminishes the faith of Afghan society in NATO and the U.S, even though his government is known to carry out large-scale corruption.  

On the other hand, despite U.S. Commander McChrystal’s assessment of “something more than just military operations must be done to stabilize the country” in his report, neither the U.S. nor NATO headquarters contemplate any such policies. As a military organization, we can understand why NATO is reluctant to get involved in humanitarian aid and regional development policies. However, after the experiences in Vietnam and Iraq wars, it is hard to understand why the U.S. does not consider carrying out infrastructure projects which would be regarded as a positive step by the Afghan population.

According to the 2009 Yearbook, published by Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI), the worldwide total military expenditure in 2008 was 1,464 trillion dollars. This figure illustrates an increase of 2.4% compared to the previous year and an increase of 45% compared to 1999. The U.S. alone spent 41.5% of that total. The Obama administration’s 2009 budget indicates a figure of 175 billion dollars for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. But there is wide speculation that the actual spending is higher than this. According to a report prepared by the U.S. Congress, by the year 2015, the total expenditure on the Iraq and Afghanistan operations will be around 2.7 to 4.5 trillion dollars.

ONE OF THE POOREST

Why have I mentioned all these war expenditures? Because the total annual expenditure of the United Nations and its agencies is only 27 billion dollars. Consequently, the UN, including all humanitarian aids, only spends one eighth of the U.S. military spending. Afghanistan’s GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is 22,32 billion dollars. When you consider the foreign exchange rate, this figure drops to 11,71 billion dollars. Per capita income is 800 dollars. With these figures, Afghanistan is the 219^th country among 229 states and regions worldwide. Two thirds of the Afghan population live with a per day income of less than 2 dollars.

The Taliban and Al Qaeda would not exist today if 10% of the U.S. expenditure on war was spent on the Afghani people instead. But obviously, war equipment had to be used in order to keep the defense sector of the U.S. afloat. Obama’s latest briefing on Afghanistan clearly shows that no one cares about saving the Afghani people. Let’s see if the U.S. will be able to save its own soldiers from the Taliban “honorably”.

Prof. Dr. Çağrı Erhan: Coordinator of USAK and the President of USAK-Transatlantic Research Center.

*This article was first published on December 8, 2009 at the Diplomatik Muhakeme column of Türkiye Newspaper.