|
The fates of Afghanistan, Iraq and the US-led ‘war on terrorism’ are now inextricably intertwined. The outcome of political and military struggle in one is capable of seriously affecting the fortunes of the others.
Afghanistan has achieved a great deal during its transition over the last two years from a theocratic past, but still has a long way to go.
Iraq, where the US and its allies are in serious trouble, faces further upheaval with uncertain outcomes.
Meanwhile, the ‘war on terrorism’ has lost its initial focus.
Afghanistan
Afghanistan and Iraq are both seriously disrupted states. They are made up of numerous micro-societies — more so in the case of Afghanistan — which have segregated as a result of this disruption. Neither has ever experienced a tradition of democracy, or a fair and equitable system of justice and national reconciliation.
Afghanistan, however, has achieved a number of objectives since the overthrow of the Taliban, including the establishment of an internationally-recognised government, the convening of two Loya Jirgas (the traditional Afghan grand assembly) and October’s presidential elections.
Relative security has returned to Kabul and certain other parts of the country, internecine conflict has decreased and some economic reconstruction has begun. Afghanistan has also taken steps to create a national army, police force and border guard. All this has been helpful in facilitating the return of more than three million refugees.
Yet Afghanistan still lacks an effective bureaucracy and system of governance, and suffers a shortage of skilled manpower. The government is riddled with malpractice and dependent on support from NATO and US-led coalition forces. The Afghan army, police and border guard will not be in a position to replace these forces for years to come.
Beyond Kabul, the government’s limited influence has allowed a narco-economy to develop, which is equivalent to one-third of Afghanistan’s legal GDP.
A majority of Afghans still fear the return of the Taliban, and of ethnic and tribal fighting. They therefore support the presence of foreign forces as a necessary evil.
Iraq
"The US is now involved in a very damaging war from which it may not be able to extricate itself with any more dignity than the Soviets did from Afghanistan"
|
In the case of Iraq, the road to democracy, stability and national reconciliation is set to be a lot more tortuous, bloody and costly than in Afghanistan. With no effective balance between various national groups, no viable processes of reconstruction and a strong sense of anti-American anger among Arabs and Muslims, Iraq’s transformation into a workable stable democracy seems beyond reach for the foreseeable future.
The small core of neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration who urged war with Iraq failed to discern that the nation was more sharply divided between fewer micro-societies (the Arab Shia, the Arab Sunnis and the non-Arab Kurds) than Afghanistan and that elements within each could violently challenge the occupying powers — and one another.
Unlike the Afghans, over 80 per cent of Iraqis want the occupying forces to leave.
By the time of the US intervention, the Afghans had had enough after 23 years of fighting, but in Iraq there was plenty of energy and capability to react to the American occupation.
The War on Terror
The architects of the Iraq war were blasé about the way in which it would cause a major diversion from Afghanistan and the war on terror.
First, the Iraq war has prevented the United States from deploying more forces in Afghanistan, and investing more to ensure its success in achieving the intertwined goals of security, stability and democratisation.
Second, it has inflamed Arab and Muslim opinion against the US, and provided Al Qaeda with more recruits for wider operations.
Third, it has diminished the credibility of the US and weakened its international standing, undermining its ability to secure greater leverage against international terrorism.
The US is now involved in a very damaging war from which it may not be able to extricate itself with any more dignity than the Soviets did from Afghanistan.
If it opts for an accelerated pullout, this could easily spell the end of American political dominance in the Middle East and reflect very badly on the efforts of the US and its allies in Afghanistan and the war on terror. If it stays ‘for as long as necessary’, America will not be able to wear the costs without sinking into ‘another Vietnam-type syndrome’.
The UN cannot now be expected to take over the transition of Iraq, given Kofi Annan’s declaration that the war was illegal, and the deteriorating security conditions in Iraq.
The White House’s best option is to overhaul US foreign policy to restore America’s moral and political credibility as a constructive power in world politics.
In addition, Washington needs to move fast to help resolve the Palestinian problem, to rebuild Afghanistan, and to work with the democratic forces in Arab/Muslim countries to build pluralist, participatory political orders.
These acts can help to delegitimise terrorism and to rebuild bridges of trust and understanding between the mainstreams from both sides of the divide. Otherwise, the scene is set for long-term hostilities and higher oil prices.
|
Search Marketing & Comm.
Home
One of the world’s leading authorities on Afghanistan and the Middle East, Professor Amin Saikal, recently presented an update on Afghanistan, Iraq and the War on Terror to the National Press Club. This is a condensed version of his speech.