The Coloring of the Press

According to International Relations theorist, Stephen M. Walt, we keep slogging through the Afghan War as America negates to acknowledge its military shortcomings. The ultimate decision of where and when to fight is not necessarily a military decision in a democracy, though the military still does not like to lose. Therefore, Walt believes that there has been a misconstruing of the reported facts about the current war. Moreover, Walt contends that Obama is only sending additional troops because American soldiers are there now. Had the situation in Afghanistan been the same today without an American military presence, the president would likely not have sent the aforementioned influx of troops. Therefore, the only reason that American perpetuates the war is to maintain military credibility at home, to eradicate fears of Afghanistan being a safe haven for Al- Qaeda, and the apprehension about domestic payback. Moreover, according to Dexter Filkins, "nothing short of a miracle will give [the Americans] much in return" in regards to Afghanistan. Therefore, the positive spin that the press has been placing on the troop surge in Afghanistan and the increasing weakness of the Taliban seems far- flung from the reality of the situation. In fact, the set withdrawal date of 2014 infers that America will pull out of Afghanistan not when the latter country is a shining beacon for democracy, but when it's future is left up to fate. America will soon have to balance their profits and losses and will likely withdraw from Afghanistan before completely transitioning the country to self- determination. The problem is that it has taken America so long to find out that their dreams in the region cannot be fulfilled. The losses will soon outweigh the profits and America will be forced to drop the Afghan situation back on a fragile fulcrum from which it can slide either which way.

Will the Revolutionary Wave Hit Afghanistan?

In a recent New York Times Blog post, Rajiv Srinivasan speculated on the impact that the current Middle East riots might have on Afghanistan. From what I’ve been able to find out, Rajiv Srinivasan is (or was) a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army who was born in India but raised in America. His military service has taken him to many places in the Middle East, which is why he has such an interest in the area. In his blog he states that while the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia are worthy of praise he feels that Afghanistan has been overlooked.

Based on his experiences, Srinivasan fears that in Afghanistan’s isolated villages, where tribal traditions are prominent in society, the tribal elders will react negatively to the sprouting rebellions throughout the Middle East. Both of these uprisings have been driven primarily by the countries’ youth and Srinivasan writes that Afghani village elders see those resistance movements as signs of disrespect against the countries’ elders.

However it is not just a conservative mentality that may lead Afghanis to feel unsure about the recent riots. While the Karzai administration is trying to implement a western democratic government in Afghanistan, the riots in other parts of the Middle East threaten to topple this system as they have toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia.

In the rural villages of Afghanistan, the people, or at least the older generations, are typically more conservative with the way in which they approach religion. I believe this conservative thinking, however, ties back to the tribal traditions of the Afghani ethnic groups. For those who may not know, the Pashtun people make up the majority of Afghanistan’s population, not Arabs. While religion, specifically Islam, is a uniting factor between Afghanistan and the Arab world, many tribal traditions and values still maintain deep importance in the culture of Afghanistan, at least in the more isolated areas. I’m sure that in the cities, like Kabul, the people do not maintain such a conservative mentality and are probably more susceptible to be enticed by the idea of revolution. However, in my opinion it seems that the situation in Afghanistan is not similar enough to the situations in Tunisia, Egypt, and now Libya for a rebellion to take root and implement drastic changes, especially not while U.S. troops are stationed there.

Overall, it seems to me that while revolution may be spreading across the Middle East, it might not have as strong of an effect in Afghanistan due to a few different factors. Certainly the factors mentioned above, such as culture and U.S. occupation make rebellion seem less likely, but frequent Taliban insurgencies only make a liberal revolution seem more improbable. While I know there are many people in Afghanistan who want change, it seems that their voices are often overlooked or suppressed. So even though there are Afghanis who would champion change and rebellion, I think that there are too many forces present that are trying to prevent that from happening.

Demoralizing the Taliban

According to an article in the New York Times, American attacks on middlemen “field commanders” this past year have helped widen the gap between lower and higher levels of the Taliban. The lower ranks of Taliban who fight on the ground are starting to feel defeated and demoralized as a rift has been created between them and the leadership which takes sanctuary in Pakistan. Additionally, many lower ranked Taliban who have retreated their families to sanctuaries in Pakistan after defeats in Helmand and Kandahar are hesitant to return and refuse to take orders from the leadership who isn’t willing to leave their families behind either. Even Taliban forces safe in the North have blatantly refused to help in more active southern places like the Helmand Province. The demoralization has gotten to the point that Taliban spiritual leader Mullah Muhammad Omar has had to publically encourage the Taliban to keep fighting out US and allied forces.

The article comes after an interview with a longtime Taliban leader who is in hiding from American forces and who chose to remain anonymous in the article. He verified, as General Petraeus has acknowledged before, “unprecedented discord among the members of the Quetta Shura, the Taliban senior leadership body” and that there is internal tension among the higher ranks of the Taliban as well. He confirms that the losses at Helmand had been particularly demoralizing for the Taliban and that many “are tired of fighting ... But this is our vow, not to leave our country to foreigners” yet there is a possibility they will consider “peace talks… with the Afghan government after foreign forces leave”

Ultimately, though focusing on middle-level field commanders has begun to work to demoralize the Taliban, it is hard to end insurgency in Afghanistan when the leadership in Pakistan isn’t being affected by the work of US and allied troupes. When the people in charge are “secure across the border, and tightly controlled by Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies” it will be near impossible to improve conditions in Afghanistan.

The beginning of the end

It is the beginning of the end for Denmark’s occupation in Afghanistan. Even though Denmark’s occupancy is small, only about 750 troops, they have suffered the most deaths proportionally to any other country occupying Afghanistan. Denmark has had 40 deaths, which may seem small, but when compared to the fact that only 750 troops are in Afghanistan that is a much larger number and means Denmark is controlling a crucial area.

Denmark’s military base is in the Helmand province in southern Afghanistan. The base is in the Patrol Base Line, which is a part of the “green zone.” However this is a dangerous part of the country because it is the most heavily influenced by the Taliban. However Denmark believes it is time to begin their own withdrawal process.

The withdrawal is set to begin this summer with a whopping 30 soldiers heading home. A goal of about 650 troops left by late 2012 has been set for the country. The whole withdrawal process is supposed to take place of 4 years and to be completed by the end of 2014.

While the withdrawal process takes place Denmark is doing something very similar to the US. Denmark is increasing its investment in the Afghan police force. It is increasing its aid to the police force by about 18 million dollars by 2013, which means its total annual aid will be about 90 million dollars.

Another important fact about Denmark’s withdrawal has the goal of making Afghanistan responsible for its own security. The whole point is that Denmark wants Afghanistan to be able to stand up for itself by 2014 and to not have to rely on other countries for support. Therefore in order to ensure this, Denmark has started to beef up its monetary aid towards the country.

The plan comes at a time when many other countries are beginning to make exit strategies as well. The plan for the US has already been discussed and now Denmark. Many other countries that are a part of the International Security Assistance Force, or ISAF, are beginning to make exit strategies as well. The common theme seems to be the initial withdrawal process will begin this summer.

As countries believe Afghanistan has become safe and is beginning to be able to fend for itself, they can begin their withdrawal process. The plans are constantly being set in motion with more countries announcing withdrawal plans monthly. The foreign occupancy in Afghanistan has an ending in sight. Not a set date, but at least with withdrawal beginning and end is bound to come about. Once the withdrawal begins a time constraint is also put on the Afghan police force to get control of the country because once the other countries are gone, their gone and not likely to come back. There is a power shift about to begin in Afghanistan and the police force better be ready for it.

Nathan

"Mozhdah" Addresses Rights of Women on Kabul Television

A woman being called the “Afghan Oprah” has taken Afghanistan television by storm in her controversial, liberal, and women-rights advocating show “Mozhdah”.

At the age of five, Mozhdah Jamalzadah and her outspokenly anti-communist parents became refugees of Soviet invaded Afghanistan and escaped to Canada. She accredits her parents for always reminding her of where she came from and the plight of the many people who didn’t escape, especially women and children. Through YouTube and Canadian Idol, Mozhdah became a huge pop-star and model in Canada. In 2010 she became the first Afghan women to sing at the White House when President Obama invited her for his celebration of “International Women’s Day”.

Now, Mozhdah is returning to Afghanistan to host a TV talk show in which she tackles sensitive issues like divorce, domestic violence, and women’s rights which aren’t readily talked about in Afghan homes. Her show combines entertainment and education in order to focus on the family values she believes need to be made known to the people. In addition to her liberal views, many traditionalists critique her western variation on traditional Afghani dress which she says is actually not uncommon in Kabul. This controversy and the legal obligations of the television channel keep her very restricted by the media and Mozhdah constantly has to fight to talk about issues as controversial as divorce.

While Mozhdah says she feels no threat by the Taliban, the media fire she has sparked in Afghanistan puts her at constant risk especially as a woman with little protection by law. Her aim is to not only reach the women and girls who look up to her but to reach the men in the households and change their closely held views on women’s rights and family roles. The influence and inspiration of Mozhdah Jamalzadah and the popularity of her show are clear signs that after years of war and human insecurity, the Afghan people are seeking progressive change.

If America can't win, how badly can we afford to lose?

In taking Marjah, an Afghan city, as an example, one can see that the peace established in Afghanistan under NATO control is fragile. Twelve months ago, Marjah was a bleak city squelched in the iron fist of the Taliban. Sharia law was ruthlessly enforced, and a sentiment of paralyzing fear permeated outside the core of power. There was little activity in the main square as the city was a ghost town (think post- Taliban portrayal of Kabul in "The Kite Runner" if you've seen the movie). However, as NATO forces have begun to reestablish security in Marjah, the schools are reopened and the Afghan national flag flies proudly in the main square. People have been able to crawl out from severe oppression to a life of (as the West would perceive it) normalcy. However, if the Obama administration attempts to withdraw troops by 2014, cities such as Marjah must be bolstered so that peace can perpetuate in the region. In fact, demonstrating the fragility of the current peace, one Marjah citizen portended that the Taliban would regain power in two weeks after NATO troops are withdrawn. It truly seems that NATO forces take two steps back for every one step forward. For example, while the troops were securing a tentative peace in Majah, other NATO soldiers further north were fired on and killed in roadside bombings. In fact, this past winter has been the most violent winter of the war, where the influx in troops is leading to that many more casualties. Moreover, as NATO troops are slated to withdraw in three years, the Afghan police will begin to face insurgency this spring, as the beginning of a transition of safeguarding from external to organic. To add salt to an open wound, General David Petraeus is expected to retire from his position as leader of the American initiative, evincing the military expert's wavering confidence in the success of the operation. Furthermore, governmental corruption has made Afghanistan "a personal fiefdom for a handful of war lords and kingmakers," claims an analyst of the Afghan situation. In fact, America's initiative to establish a stable government in Cairo has been hindered with the rampant corruption and Hamid Karzai's speculative faithful commitment in democracy. Moreover, statistics claiming a great improvement in Afghan life are mainly restricted to urban areas out of the Taliban's control where Americans are succeeding. Therefore, the core of the battle in establishing a democratic government in place of the Taliban is not too close to being achieved. Furthermore, Obama's setting a finite date to withdraw troops only encourages Al- Qaeda and the Taliban to hold down fort until that date, when they can prospectively take Afghanistan back to the bleak, radical Islamic republic that it was before the American troops arrived.
The situation is very bleak, and to avoid an even more taxing (economically and patriotically) war of attrition, NATO troops might have to pull out without forming Afghanistan as a shining beacon of democracy in the region. Moreover, the question begs to be asked: how much further before we can consider the job adequately completed? We can't pull out in three years and have the country launch back into chaos. The imposition of a finite withdrawal date is satisfying to Americans at home but is even more enticing to radical Islamic groups in Afghanistan. Who should Obama be more ruthless to?
Thanks,
Nikhil

Afghan Women Blogging to Implement Change

In the midst of Taliban insurgencies and government instability, one section of Taliban’s population remains mostly silent, but not by choice. I’m talking about the women of Afghanistan who feel that speaking out is risking their lives.

In a 2009 article from Aljazeera, I learned of a group of women who were collaborating on a blog, called the Afghan Women’s Writing Project where Afghan women can write and publish their stories on the web for anyone to read. The project was started by American novelist Masha Hamilton and its purpose is to empower the women of Afghanistan and encourage them to speak their minds unfiltered by family members or the media. Often times these women have to publish their stories anonymously for fear that revealing their identities could endanger their lives. Even then it is a challenge to get their stories out because many women do not have access to computers, but they believe that this project is worth the risk.

Although this article was written in 2009, this concept of women feeling marginalized and oppressed in society still holds true today. An article from February 15, also from Aljazeera, discusses the oppression of women in Afghanistan today and how many women are fleeing to safe houses. Many of these women are subject to abuse and domestic violence and because women’s rights are not protected in Afghanistan. They often feel controlled by their husband’s or families and do not have the power to even defend themselves by speaking their mind.

These women want to move forward with their lives and they want to implement change within their country by sharing their stories and their ideas. This writing project is a step in that direction and allows the women to directly share their powerful stories with people all over the world. As one of the women said, "I believe words are stronger than guns. It is words that start revolutions and changes."[1] The writing process also allows the women a chance to further their own educations by practicing their English (every post is written in English) and cultivating creative thinking.

Having perused some of the women’s blog posts I have found them to be incredibly moving and honest, and for non-native speakers their English is very good. All of us in 20/20 contribute weekly blog posts because the current situation in Afghanistan is of great interest to us, but it is something that we can do easily whenever we want or need to. However, for these Afghan women, blogging is a form of rebellion, one that gives them a voice, and the opportunity to do so is not ever-present. Almost all of these women write their stories in secret whenever they have access to a computer, and in a language that they are still learning. However the power of their words is astonishing and they write with such focus and passion that it is clear they are ready and willing for changes to occur. I think that the determination of these women to post their stories and their ideas is testament to the fact that they are willing and capable of implementing reforms in the government and protecting their rights. I think it’s a great project and I encourage you all to check it out (the link is in the second paragraph).

[1] Wander, Andrew. Afghan Women Writing for Change. <http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912675616888150.html>


Link to 2011 article on Women’s Shelters: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2011/02/20112151789998563.html

Link to 2009 article on Women’s Blog: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/12/200912675616888150.html

The League of Former Taliban Members

Last week a man named Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef checked into a hotel in London. This man was held in Guantanamo Bay for four years, charged with co-coordinating with Taliban and Al Qaeda forces. Zaeef has been on the United Nation’s blacklist since 2001 and was removed this past summer. Lately he has emerged as a key ally to Karzai.

Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef has been acting as a negotiator between President Karzai and the Taliban’s supreme commander in Pakistan, Mullah Muhammad Omar. It has been thought that Zaeef and Karzai have been discussing a deal that would return the power to the Taliban in parts of south Afghanistan. As a result the Taliban would accept the control of the Kabul government and rid itself of any Al-Qaeda jihadists. This would be a small price to pay in order to regain peace in Afghanistan and end the war. However discussed in my last blog post this is an unlikely scenario.

The problem with this is that the Taliban would not likely be confined to the predetermined area and it is doubtful that they would obey the government in Kabul. The other reason the possibility that this deal will get done is small, is because all of the members that Karzai is using to converse with the Taliban are old members. They have not been with or fought with the Taliban in several years and the way things are run expected to adapt in their absence.

Another reason why the negotiations are poised to fail is because it is improbable that the Taliban would separate their ties from Al Qaeda. This can mainly be seen through a 1998 incident. Al Qaeda blew up an American submarine. Immediately following the Taliban issued a statement saying that they would respond with full force if Bin Laden were harmed. The Taliban was also given warning less than a month before 9/11 that Bin Laden was planning an attack against the US. However nothing was done to stop the attack. This shows how committed to Al Qaeda the Taliban was. It also provides insight into the reason why Americans associate the Taliban with Al Qaeda. Even though they are two separate groups it was the Taliban that gave Al Qaeda a place to train and a basis of operation. This creates in the minds of Americans an association or even an alliance between the two.

Because Zaeef has been willing to trade his old ways for new ones of peace there is hope for the country. With a team of former Taliban members working for Karzai who knows what kind of negotiation can be reached. Perhaps it is due to this group that peace will finally befall on Afghanistan. More and more former Taliban members are asking to be a part of the process because they want to see a country that can have coexistence. Through this portion of Karzai’s government the current leaders of the Taliban are able to speak and express their desires to the current government. This is a huge step forward in the process for negotiations of peace within the country.

Nathan

The Taliban vs. The Karzai Administration

Just this week, the district governor of the Kunduz province, Wahid Omarkhel, was assassinated in his office along with six other people, by a suicide bomber. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, the Taliban has taken responsibility for the assassinations and they reportedly have a stronghold in the Kunduz province where the murders occurred. The Kunduz province is located in the north of Afghanistan, but the Taliban has been typically known to have stronger support in the south and the east of the country. This very recent assassination is evidence that this insurgency has the ability to attack far outside of its strongholds.

The Taliban has also been known to consistently target members of government like Omarkhel with either threats or attacks, making it increasingly difficult for Karzai and his administration to show the country that they are in control. Furthermore, with so many politicians being threatened, Karzai’s administration is unable to employ the most qualified and experienced politicians. Taliban insurgent exist in strongholds, like the one in Kunduz, all over the country, and while the assassination of Omarkhel is tragic, the real issue that it raises is who really holds the power in Afghanistan; the government or the insurgent Taliban groups?

While the Karzai administration is backed by the U.S. government and is meant to foster stability and democracy, many people view it as a mock of real democracy which holds no real power over its people. Judging by the attacks and harm that insurgent Taliban groups have caused recently it seems that the real power, and support, lies in the hands of these insurgencies. This would explain Karzai’s desire to include members from the old Taliban regime in upcoming peace talks. However, do the people of Afghanistan really want the Taliban back or would they prefer the Karzai administration? This is a question that keeps coming back to me, and I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but I think it's possible that the people might not want either of the aforesaid options. Perhaps the people really just want change, which they inspire and which works in the favor of human rights and economic stability.

The Taliban, when in power, was a brutal regime with harsh laws and severe punishments, and I’m not sure that the people truly want to bring that back. However, the Karzai administration has thus far not proved itself to be a strong or effective government and people often feel fed up with it. In fact, many people believe the administration to be a government full of puppets for president Karzai and the U.S. which therefore does not hold the well-being of the people first and foremost. I think that instead of choosing between either the Karzai administration or the Taliban, the people want to create for themselves the system that works best for them in their home. I believe that the impetus for change and democracy needs to come from within the country and that the people need to carry out their ideas. I know many people who would disagree with me and claim that Afghanis would not be able to handle that situation nonviolently or that it would ultimately lead to another radical, religious movement. However, I think that that belief ultimately puts down the Afghanis and makes them out to be incompetent people, which they definitely are not.

I know that most of what I have written seems like speculation, but I honestly believe that there is some truth behind many of my ideas. I also realize that all of my other posts have been summaries of other articles or videos and this time I really wanted to present some thought-provoking ideas that are my own.

Thank you for reading, and here's a link to the article from the LA Times: Afghanistan suicide bomber kills district governor, 6 others

Opium Economy and Corruption

Among government instability and insurgent terrorism, this National Geographic article describes that the economy of Afghanistan is fueled by two main sources: “Western aid, in the hopes that the country will renounce the Taliban [and] opium trafficking supported by the Taliban, which use the proceeds to fund attacks on Western troop” and thus creates a never ending source of violence in Afghanistan. The opium trade has plagued Afghanistan since poppy seeds were introduced to the area as far back as the time of Alexander the Great and currently 85% of Afghani citizens are farmers funded by drug smugglers. In many cases, the opium trade and exports seem to have altered the course of Afghanistan as decisions about eradicating its existence are negated by the fact that the economy would be gone without the money it provides.

Since 2000, the Afghanistan government and even the Taliban have been outwardly opposing the opium trade. Spiritual leader of the Taliban Mullah Omar even “issued a fatwa, or religious decree, declaring opium production a violation of Islam [and] the Taliban enforced the ban with brutal efficiency” however that did not completely end Taliban involvement in the trade. It is readily admitted by the poppy farmers that in order to successfully smuggle opium, you must “have relationships with someone—like the district or provincial police chief" and that many Taliban and even government officials are corrupted by money and drugs enough to do so. The article gives the opinion that “the Taliban's involvement with the drug mafia” after having declaring the whole act religiously irreverent “shows that they don't want a truly Islamic government. They just want power." The issue of ending the harvest of poppy seeds is so deeply rooted in corruption and underground markets now that it seems that in order “to eradicate poppy, we would first have to eradicate corruption."

However, the question arises as to what peacekeepers are doing to eradicate poppy fields in Afghanistan either. Many farmers don’t understand the consequences of the poppy fields so simply working to shut down farms of people who are only working to provide for their families is irresponsible. Many of the farmers are normal people and the article even tells the story of a widow whose husband fought for the Mujahidin against the soviets and recently died fighting the Taliban as part of the ANA and yet who made money from poppy seed crops. Another farmer tells that USAID workers at one point "promised…that they'd give us bags of wheat seed and fertilizer" to plant to supplement the poppy crop which readily grows in the arid land. However, years after those promises nothing has been provided or accomplished. Little aid has helped to improve everyday Afghan life and in many places money hasn’t even gone to local medical clinics that are dependant on the use of opium as a medicinal drug, often getting patients addicted by proxy and fueling the trade even more. Peacekeepers seriously need to think about where prioritizing goes and in this case, microfinance grassroots organizations that help to eradicate the opium trade farm by farm may be the simplest solution to a conflict that continually fuels itself.

A few Scenarios

There is something that has yet to be addressed in any of our blog posts. I am going to be the first to give a brief overview of some of the scenarios the Afghanistan government can use.

One of the scenarios was that the southeastern part of the country should no longer be occupied by troops. Based on the article “Plan B in Afghanistan” by Blackwell, this region has little hope to continue to remain Taliban free. Additionally, it is the most expensive portion of the country to keep occupied with troops and maintain safety. Therefore it was the author’s idea to immediately drawback from this position and let it takes its course. Blackwell said that there would be a line the Taliban will not cross. He also proposed the idea of bombing the office buildings in that part of the country once it is Taliban controlled.

To me this idea made little to no sense, because one by giving the Taliban the southeastern part of the country what is stopping them from expanding even more. Any line created would not be followed. The belief of the Taliban about the US occupation of Afghanistan is that the country has the right to know they will not be attacked and that is it. This means that by giving them an inch the Taliban might try to take a mile. As for the second part of the idea if the Taliban did adhere to the line, why would they ever work in office buildings? No one seems to give the Taliban the credit they deserve for their intelligence. Even if 1 in 10 roadside bombs goes off, they never have to fight an actual battle to cause damage. The Taliban know how to be safe and no have to worry about bombs and the idea of bombing them when they work in office buildings is ridiculous. They are a lot more intelligent and would think of this, therefore causing them to work in a safe place.

Another scenario is that of having a central government with divisional states. The states would be divided into the regions of the ethnic groups. The only time in which Afghanistan was truly stable was during the tribal times. Since then any central government has never been able to reach the corners of the country and maintain a strong government. This is why by splitting up the country into the states of the ethnic groups it creates a similar feel to the tribal times. The states would have the opportunity to choose their own miniature governments and how they wish to be run. This means most likely the Pashtun’s in the south will like to be run by the Taliban, while others want democracy. Additionally, Kabul will remain a city for everyone. This will serve as the HQ for the government and meetings between the state leaders. The national army will be strong enough to defend the state if another encroaches on the territory and will also be based in Kabul. The central government will only be for the foreign policy of the country. This means there is a split between using a central government and a state run government. The only real use of the central government will be to protect the rights of the state as well as the foreign policies.

This is my personal favorite because it seems the most appealing to all the groups in Afghanistan. It has the potential to create a haven of peace, where each state gets to choose how it is ruled. With a ethnic center in Kabul, to help keep the peace throughout the country.

Many more ideas on the way

Nathan

I can just barely see the light at the end of the tunnel!

A common misconception in the Afghanistan conflict involves the distinct objectives of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. To clear a few things up, the Taliban is an Islamist militia group that rules Afghanistan from 1996 onwards. The Taliban is constituted predominantly of Pasthun tribe members and the fundamentalist group receives aid form Pakistan primarily. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, is not organically Afghan. Al Qaeda is an internationally recognized terrorist group operating in a wave of radical Sunni Islam calling for a global Jihad. Moreover, Al Qaeda grew from ideological roots in the Middle East (most notably in Egypt). In contrast, the Taliban grew in Afghanistan and was largely isolated from international events (in contrast to Al Qaeda's global Jihad).
The Taliban leadership has stated that it would break its ties with Al Qaeda to reach a negotiated settlement to end the Afghan War and to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a base for international terrorism. In fact, it should be noted that many Taliban leaders are not opposed to the West or the US regardless of circumstances, but rather are opposed to specific American policies or objectives in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Taliban does not desire a return to the to Taliban leadership in Afghanistan (a la 1996) but still represents the existing power of the group. If the Taliban is given the reigns of Afghan leadership, the question becomes if the older- generation Taliban members could keep Afghanistan terror- free. There would be support to break with senior Al Qaeda leadership if the Taliban maintains control of Afghanistan, but how this settlement is addressed will determine how successful or potent the break will be. In fact, Taliban engagement on a political level would evince beneficial opportunities that would not exist in keeping the Taliban quelled in government.
Another misconception about the Afghan situation is that the Taliban will not talk to negotiate a peaceful resolution. There is evidence that the Taliban will talk however (ex. memoirs of former Taliban ambassador suggest so) though the question then becomes why the Taliban would enter into talks. As fighting intensifies, the British generals think that the added military pressure will lead to the Taliban entering negotiation, though researchers at NYU feel that the intense combat is doing just the opposite. In fact, researchers argue that the military operations are fragmenting the Taliban community, creating younger, more radicalized fighters less willing to negotiate a peace deal as all these militants have seen is American and British oppression. Moreover, the younger generation is more susceptible to to being swayed by the Al Qaeda movement of global Jihad. In intensifying the fighting, the West is essentially destroying the organizations with whom the West wants to negotiate.
Furthermore, a possible solution to the conflict that has not gained much traction is for the Taliban to accept shared power of Afghanistan (shared with the existing political factions) while accepting American military presence in the country for a period of time. This solution seems unlikely to be supported by the local political factions in Afghanistan, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
As for the Al Qaeda, Afghanistan must attempt to remove the group skilfully, as if performing a possibly life- threatening surgery if any complications occur. America does not want the Al Qaeda to leave Afghanistan and regroup in Yemen or Egypt, therefore stretching its tentacles into the groundswell in the Middle East (especially Egpyt) right now. Moreover the Taliban cannot hand over Al Qaeda leaders to America either, as they would essentially be performing hari kari. How would a radical Islamist group kill another group of similar ideology and expect to be left untouched by Al Qaeda's allies? If the Taliban does stab Al Qaeda in the back, America could end up involved in a war against many warring terrorist factions. Just to write such a sentence looks gruesome on paper.
That's all I have for now; I hope that I've depicted a few Afghan predicaments with more clarity than they were portrayed before.

- Nikhil

Karzai's Visit to Russia

Hey Everyone,

Last month, Afghani president Hamid Karzai visited Russia on an invitation from Russian president Dmitry Medvedev. The purpose of the visit was to discuss the relationship between the two countries and possibly form some sort of deal where Russia lends its military training and equipment to Afghanistan. Having previously been enemies, this agreement to meet is a major accomplishment. After the war between the Soviet Union and Afghanistan in the 1980’s, relations between Afghanistan and Russia were not positive. However, since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, relations between Afghanistan and Russia have been improving.

Karzai arrived in Moscow with “a large delegation of ministers and business leaders” and he was set to meet with Medvedev as well as other prominent “members of the Russian business community”.[1] The reasons for Karzai’s visit were to possibly acquire Russian military equipment and training for Afghan military forces, as mentioned earlier, as well as to investigate potential economic opportunities between the two nations. Karzai also agreed to meet with Medvedev for the purpose of ensuring stability in Afghanistan once the U.S. troops leave the country, which is supposedly planned to take place in 2014. Considering the fact that Afghanistan is in such an unstable state, and has been for so long, it makes sense that the government would attempt to reach out to its (powerful) neighbors for support.

However, it appears that the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan was not included in these talks and was not even consulted about them and is therefore unhappy about the situation. It is also possible that the U.S. is bothered by the strengthening relationship between Afghanistan and Russia because during the Soviet invasion in the eighties, America gave their support to the Afghan resistance movement which cost hundreds of thousands of lives. The main reason for disquiet though would be the fact that the U.S. coalition in Afghanistan was not consulted prior to or during the talks in Russia.

It does make sense that Afghanistan would want to reach out to its neighbors for alliances and support since the U.S. coalition will eventually leave the country. Afghanistan does not want to rely on one country alone, especially if that country is much farther away. Forming an alliance with Russia gives Afghanistan an alternative, and it helps that Russia is close by. In fact, since November (2010), Russia has been sending military weapons and supplies to Afghanistan and has even made an agreement with NATO that allows this transport.

I have not found any articles that discuss the outcome of those talks in Russia between Karzai and Medvedev, but the fact that they met and seem to be improving relations between their countries says a lot.


[1]NA. Karzai Visit to Russia Irks U.S. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/01/201112014297833879.html


Link to the article I read:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/01/201112014297833879.html


http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-01/21/c_13701987.htm

Death Tolls 2010

The New York Times published a shocking info-graphic this weekend (see below) comparing the death tolls of American and allied troupes in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2010. In the graphic, each man dead from the War on Terror is given a uniform shape and are specially color coded and placed to signify where and how they died. The chart suggests an outlook of abounding violence in Afghanistan and relative stability in Iraq as the death toll in Afghanistan was more than twelve times that in Iraq. Additionally, the chart shows that the majority of deaths in Afghanistan were from “homemade bombs and small-arms fire” rather than Iraq where most deaths were not combat related.

Though it would suggest that Iraq should be seen as a positive role model for Afghanistan, it is hard to believe that the primary cause for the decrease in American and allied deaths hasn’t been the large pull of troupes. While American troupes leave, “Iraqi security forces take on more of the burden” of controlling the bombings and hostile fires. Without the total death tolls of the countries, it is hard to see whether violence has actually decreased or increased or if what has really changed is which people are most at risk.

The map of Afghanistan is somewhat misleading as more urban cities are seen as larger on the map whereas most of the deaths take place in small providences in the south and East. For example, Kabul, which is largest on the map, only suffered eleven deaths primarily to suicide bombings and non-combat related deaths. However, one of the most concentrated amount of deaths occurred in the Helmand Province “where some 15,000 American and NATO troops began a major offensive in February” the adjacent article explains.

It is hard to tell whether this graphic is trying to suggest that the violence in Afghanistan is negative or whether it signifies progress. The author of the article states that “Afghan and Western troops have made great strides in stabilizing the insecure provinces in the south and east of the country” but it is hard to look at this chart and not be struck by the sheer amount of bodies lying dead from battle. In either case, 2010 has proven to be “the deadliest year of the war effort thus far” and it is hard to believe that any end is in sight.

US troops coming home?

Hi!

With recent talks in the President’s “State of the Union” speech of how the U.S. is going to begin withdrawing troops as soon as this coming July, someone is going to have to step up to ensure the security of the civilians. This means that there needs to be a shift from the power of the U.S. troops to another sector. This other sector needs to be the Afghanistan National Army because the country needs to start relying on itself for self-protection.

To create the power shift it is crucial for some U.S. troops to be reassigned to the training of the Afghanistan Army. To make sure there are going to be enough troops in order to defend the government and civilians of Afghanistan there needs to be a mass training happening now. Although July is about 6 months away the date will be here in not time.

Although according to Lt. General David Rodriquez “the size and the pace” of the withdrawal remains unknown. This means very few troops and a slow rate may begin to be withdrawn come July; however in order to maximize the amount of potential troops to withdraw it is necessary to transfer as much power as possible to the Afghanistan National Army. This in turn will mean the country can rely less on the U.S., meaning more troops can be withdrawn.

Rodriquez goes on to claim, “The Taliban is not on the ropes yet. They are going to continue to fight back.” This is all the more reason the ANA (Afghanistan National Army) needs to be able to defend itself and be the protective force for the country. He also suggested that instead of sending troops straight home, there may be an interim period where they are used to train new recruits for the ANA, and come home after.

At the present point in time there are about 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. For almost two years every military official has downplayed Obama’s goal to start the drawback in July, but as we approach the date it becomes necessity to know that it will be possible. According to Rodriquez, the key factor is going to be the effectiveness of the Afghan security forces.

The question that is being constantly asked now is “Can they do it with less of us?” And as we approach the month of July this question becomes more and more critical. For the world it is necessary for the answer to this question to be yes. By answering yes the world can begin to see Afghanistan returning from the ashes. It will be acknowledge as a country that is beginning to regain independence. And for the citizens of the U.S. it will be seen as a beacon of hope. Not only will the troops being brought home seen as a good sign, but there will be this idea that our time spent there has been worth it. And that is the number one thing that has to happen, we as citizens of the United States need to know that the time spent in Afghanistan was worthwhile and that what we did was for the best.

Nathan