Wednesday, 18 February 2009
George Modelski, in his theory, says there are “long cycles” in global politics. According to him every global power rises and falls in periods of one hundred years, and in the last phase of decline global powers tend to expand more than they should. Some say now we are in the last phase of American cycle, with the US presence in Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time. But with the situation in Iraq improving, Afghanistan seems like it will be decisive in determining the fate of American cycle and the newly elected president Barack Obama.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the war in Afghanistan was called “the right war.” The US had an ambitious discourse when intervening Afghanistan, including a comprehensive state building agenda with billions of aid going to Afghanistan for reconstruction. Nevertheless, as we enter the eighth year of the war, the Taliban has started to gain control of the country, with a huge income coming from poppy fields that account for 92% of global opium production. NATO allies have started to become more and more reluctant to send more troops and money to Afghanistan. Neighboring Pakistan and its relations with Taliban continued to be a source of instability in both countries. Besides, the government of Afghanistan failed to find solutions to one of its biggest problems, corruption.
The war in Iraq was quite a distraction with almost all resources and soldiers going there and Afghanistan losing its priority in the agenda. Afghanistan had an early declaration of victory on May 1, 2003, with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stating the country is secure just hours before Bush said the war in Iraq is over. In 2005, as things seem to improve on the ground with a new constitution being drafted and elections held in 2004, the Afghan war became “the other war.” Nonetheless, there was a problem, the country was not secure and the war was far from being over. In 2006, insurgency gained momentum or to put it more precisely, the Taliban came back more powerful than before, taking over most of the southern provinces and moving on to Kabul. By 2007, it was clear that the time had arrived for a change in policies in Afghanistan. And that change came with Obama, or so they say.
Barack Obama is promising a substantial break from previous policies in Afghanistan. We can see that in his first act being the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as the special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. This new “Af-Pak” policy is about having a comprehensive approach when dealing with both countries, clues of which were seen in the Afghan Study Group Report of January 2008, co-chaired by General James L. Jones, Obama’s National Security Adviser. The Group’s report recommended a special envoy to coordinate all aspects of US policies and a regional plan that includes Pakistan to counter the Taliban.
Dealing with both countries is a result of good evaluation of the situation on the ground. Obama had his first visit to Afghanistan in the summer of 2008 as a presidential candidate, opposed to previous President Bush’s first visit in the fifth year of the war, and met with regional leaders, military officers, and President Karzai. Also created is what the administration calls “new realism,” which includes attainable goals and adequate resources. Having resources and managing them correctly is an important tenet of this new strategy. Without enough money and troops, it’s impossible to see progress in Afghanistan. Bush’s calls for a “Marshall Plan in Afghanistan” was a dream without a clue and no one, not even the US kept its promises of sending large amounts of aid to Afghanistan. What they did send was badly managed, as we can see from the rise in the number of luxury villas in Kabul owned by corrupt officers or narco warlords. Although these explain why Afghanistan is being called a “failed narco state” by commentators and by Vice President Joe Biden, it does not quiet explain why Karzai is held responsible for all the failures at the governance level.
It is important to know the history of weak government in Afghanistan. Social actors mostly move freely in their own local areas and do not necessarily respond to the government. Thus, the central government has a hard time dictating its power in all of the provinces of Afghanistan with a legitimate face. Local warlords with whom the US cooperated when ousting Taliban in 2001 are still powerful in the provinces. The people depend on them more than they do on government as a result of its weakness in providing services and security. The problem with security is directly related to the international military presence and their willingness to take risks when dealing with Taliban. On the other hand, the problem with services is about not having enough aid channeled through the government. Corrupt officers in Kabul are a big problem. There is also another issue concerning aid coming through independent NGOs. These actors conduct their own projects with better services, thus damaging the already weak reputation of the government in the eyes of the people.
Some commentators conclude that these problems lead to a comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan. The future of Afghanistan does not necessarily have to be like what happened in Vietnam, but there is a path of familiarity in both cases in terms of policy implementation, wrong military decisions and failure to ensure the legitimacy of the government.
The facts seem to be pessimistic, but it remains to be seen what the future can offer the US in Afghanistan. The security environment may improve with a substantial increase in the number of troops. The US is sending messages to NATO allies that it is engaged in Afghanistan decisively. This is NATO’s biggest out-of-area operation, thus it is a matter of life and death for NATO to succeed in Afghanistan. The 60-year-old alliance can become more active than before in terms of military engagement and reconstruction of the country. Holbrooke will give Obama the bottom-up overview of the US policies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan before the NATO summit is held in April 2009. Obama has a plan to confront the allies and make them understand how important Afghanistan is. For now it remains to be seen whether he will be successful or not in persuading them, but so far Obama has made a good impression in Europe with his more realistic approach and determination to succeed not just militarily, but also in creating a sustainable and viable state in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, there is another possibility for the future of Afghanistan which includes breaking a deal with the Taliban. Some say it’s too hard to create a democratic state in Afghanistan that respects the values of good governance and human rights. A better way for US may be to persuade the Taliban to refrain from opening Afghanistan to terrorists and to enable them to create a sustainable but fundamentalist state. Although it seems as an easy way to get the US troops out of Afghanistan, it has some serious repercussions. Afghanistan may return to its state of the late 90’s, in terms of legal, social, and financial structures. Besides that, with Taliban on its borders, Pakistan may become unstable and embattled in the future, which is a really dangerous development for a country with nuclear weapons.
While Holbrooke is in the region conducting his overview now, Obama states he will support Pakistani democracy and make sure Afghanistan will become sustainable through defeating the Taliban. On the other hand, Taliban fighters attacked the government buildings in Kabul and killed 20, just last week. There seems to be an irony here which points out more discourse than action. It seems that it will take some time for Obama administration to decide on new strategies.
deryatboya@yahoo.com
Turkey-Japan Relations: The Need to Think Beyond Trade
