Did Sergeant Bales reset the endgame?

By M Saeed Khalid: 


The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan at Brussels, in charge of liaison with Nato Headquarters.
Email: saeed. saeedk@gmail.com
_________________________________________________

Endgame scenarios for the latest western invasion of Afghanistan have kept chancelleries and opinion makers busy for over two years. The question that agitates the public is no longer if the US-led coalition will leave Afghanistan but is rather focused on the timelines and the circumstances of their departure. More ominously, what will Afghanistan look like after the endgame is played out? Statements from key players of the coalition indicate that by now the endgame is in fast forward mode.


The dateline of end 2014 for terminating the western forces’ combat role is being maintained but there are difficulties aplenty, not least being the realisation that the mission had effectively reached a dead end. While the military high commands can draw up campaign plans for another five years, the western public’s patience for the ten years old war is reaching its limits. The tragic murderous outing of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales near Kandahar has only made matters worse.


Bales is not a loony who cracked up and went on a shooting spree in a college campus or shopping mall. He had enlisted in the US army after the humiliation of 9/11 and was possibly imbued by a high degree of patriotism and honour. He did three tours of duty in the Iraq war and received wounds as well as medals for his performance. Sergeant Bales was reportedly sent to Afghanistan this year despite a promise that he won’t be assigned again on war duty. We may eventually learn about his motive in killing civilians including women and children asleep in their homes.

His defence meanwhile is planning to plead trauma and stress as attenuating circumstances. His lawyer, John Browne says that Bales has a spotty memory of what happened and prosecution does not have forensic evidence. The case could go on for two years. But Browne came up with the idea that his client should not be the only one on trial, the war too should be on trial. Whatever the outcome of his impending trial, the case is likely to have implications for the conduct of war in Afghanistan. Coming in the wake of Quran burning and the sickening treatment of dead Afghans by US soldiers, the reckless killing of so many poor villagers in cold blood has rocked that country to its core. This chain of events has further outraged the international opinion about the futility of a war which has gone on for too long but has now touched new levels of cruelty and apathy.

The anguish of the Afghan nation over US soldiers going berserk was manifested among others through President Karzai’s call to Nato troops to leave the rural areas and regroup in their bases. The coalition is unlikely to comply for practical reasons as well as to prove who is in-charge. But on reconsideration, the foreign forces must realise that what Karzai has desired is also envisaged in their endgame plans.

The US wants to lower its combat role and reduce forces but maintain a presence in or near key urban centres. Karzai needs that too to make certain that the Taliban or some warlords do not overrun the provincial seats of government. The point of contention is the American demands for a formal arrangement that would allow military bases and grant immunity to US personnel in Afghanistan just like the one imposed in the case of Sergeant Bales by flying him out, making light of the Afghan call to try Bales under Afghanistan’s laws.

An extended stay of the US forces in Afghanistan hinges on the two sides reaching an agreement on the modalities. Persistent discord over sofa (stationing of forces agreement) would have direct repercussions on the endgame. The most recent example is that of Iraq where the departure of the American forces was accelerated after the Iraqis said no to long term US bases on its territory. The issue of immunity came up in negotiations between Pakistan and the US/Nato for transit arrangements. Islamabad declined any such provisions despite persistent US demands.

Going back to Iran-US arrangements during the Shah’s time, Iran presumably accepted America’s demand that not only their military personnel but US civilians too would enjoy immunity from prosecution under Iranian laws and that became a key factor in galvanising opposition to the Shah.

Whether sergeant Bales “snapped” under stress on his fourth deployment in a war zone or there were additional factors behind his shooting spree, one of its consequences must be to cap coalition forces’ forward operations in Afghanistan. Another result could be Afghanistan’s definite refusal to countenance any immunity for US personnel making the question of allowing American bases redundant. Bales’ shots in Afghan homes may have dealt a blow to the US hopes of finding a legal framework for the long term stay of their forces. The obvious conclusion would be that the Americans can stay only as occupying forces but not at the “invitation” of Afghanistan.

Leslie Gelb, a veteran US defence expert is of the view that the incident involving Bales is unlikely to have any effect on the pace of withdrawal of the American troops in an election year but “come next year, whoever is president...the US and allies will quickly withdraw their forces leaving the Afghans to settle their affairs among themselves for good and ill – as is ever ordained in such wars.”

The US official position has since been explained by the top allied commander Gen John Allen in a testimony to Congress. He ruled out a change in the pace of withdrawal till the US presidential election, read the pace can accelerate soon after the election. Gen Allen also stressed that by the end of 2013, Afghan forces would have taken over primary responsibility for all operations across the country allowing Nato’s combat role to be finished by the end of 2014 as currently scheduled.

Allen’s statement has the merit of clarifying that 2014 will be the year of big transition in Afghanistan. Between end 2013 and end 2014, the US led forces will maintain a presence in the country. By then the Taliban may come back to their acceptance of talks with the Americans. By refusing to do so, Mullah Omar would provide the Americans an opportunity to extract concessions from the Kabul government to keep some forces in Afghanistan.
____________________________________________________

Bin Laden Is Gone -- But Afghanistan Can Still Be Lost

The Afghans have an old proverb. "The world will not find rest just by saying, peace". They should know .They`ve been suffering war for so long that they are probably justified in wondering whether the death of Osama bin Laden will really mean an end to the fighting that has been tearing their country apart.

Nearly 10,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in the past four years alone -- and that’s not to mention the thousands of other victims before 9/11. So many Afghans were disappointed when U.S. President Barack Obama failed to acknowledge their plight in his remarks after bin Laden’s death.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai was quick to pick up on the slight. He said, “Afghanistan has endured countless sacrifices in the war against terrorism…. I hope the U.S., Western countries and the world as a whole may honor and recognize these sacrifices of the Afghan nation.”
There is no question that most Afghans were relieved to hear of the Al-Qaeda leader’s demise. But the collective sense of relief is tempered by anxiety that the United States and its allies, having dispatched the man who brought them into Afghanistan in the first place, may now be plotting an all-out disengagement from the country.
The worry among many Afghans is that the United States will seize the opportunity to make a quick peace with the Taliban, push for their inclusion in the Kabul government, and then pull out of its military operations and nation-building. U.S. Senator George David Aiken is widely believed to have proposed a similar approach during the Vietnam War: “Declare victory and go home.”
America’s recent show of support for a British proposal to integrate the Taliban into the Afghan power structure has given many Afghans cause for alarm. The British have long believed that the only way out of the Afghan quagmire is to bring the Taliban into the government. This plan hinges on the hope that Pakistan would exercise a measure of control over the Pashtun areas through the Taliban in Kabul, while the bulk of Western attention would shift to the relatively peaceful northern regions.
President Karzai might welcome such a deal. But the reaction by non-Pashtun Afghans might be to embark on their own de facto separation from the Pashtun-majority south. Some elements in the political opposition in Kabul are already lobbying Western capitals for support of a north-south partition scheme through which they are hoping to become the dominant shareholder in the power structure -- and there are indications suggesting that some in Western capitals might welcome a “Balkan solution” along these lines.
Such partition would be a disaster. Afghanistan is not Yugoslavia. In fact Afghanistan’s various groups are too intermingled to allow them to be parceled up into ethnically based cantonments. And, contrary to popular belief in the West, many Afghans still retain a strong sense of loyalty to the idea of a unified state. Such an approach is likely to meet fierce resistance, spurring a descent back into internecine conflict. Afghanistan could find itself returning to the chaos of the mid-1990s, and bin Laden’s inheritors will once again have a base from which to continue their slain leader’s mission.
Osama bin Laden’s enduring legacy in Afghanistan was the introduction of a culture of extremism and terror. A number of reports say that bin Laden was among the myriad private individuals who were funding the resurgence of the Taliban. Most Afghan experts even claim that the neo-Taliban pose a more immediate and far graver threat to security conditions in Afghanistan than Al-Qaeda ever did. Straying from the original commitment to help Afghans get back on their feet will, in effect, be viewed as classic imperialist behavior.
By many reliable accounts, America’s recent “beheading strategy” -- the targeted killings of the top leaders of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- has caused the insurgency to metastasize. Hundreds of members of “the franchise” are now on the loose, keen to outdo one another in acts of violence. Insurgent attacks across the country continue at the rate of about 30 per day, an increase from last year. NATO officials have said they expect a particularly violent spring and summer as insurgents try to reclaim areas taken over by international troops over the winter.
It is said that over a hundred billion dollar is the annual cost of the war and the big bulk of money goes for expenditure of NATO and U.S. soldiers. Reality is that if a third of this money is annually spent on improving people’s livelihood, there will be dramatic transformations in the country in various aspects that can bring security and stability throughout the country. Why attention is not paid to improve the livelihood of people and provide them reasonable incentive and hope to work on peaceful life? This is an important question that follows with another painful fact that how much international community has been committed to their slogans and mission? However, if the current international community’s strategy is not correctly rectified, Afghanistan may witness another strategic deadlock and failure.

By Helena Malikyar and Tanya Goudsouzian, Malikyar specializes in Afghan state-building and Goudsouzian is a journalist who has covered Afghanistan since 2001, taken from Spero News website.

Bad news for Afghanistan

Rizwan Asghar

Revelations by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey that Afghanistan contains vast riches in untapped mineral deposits is not very welcome news: the discovery will not bring benefits to the Afghan people. According to some estimates, Afghanistan contains at least $1 trillion worth of minerals, including gold, cobalt, iron ore, copper, aluminium, silver and lithium. They are particularly concentrated in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The country promises to become the "Saudi Arabia of lithium."

Normally, the discovery would have been great news. The wealth would have attracted a flood of foreign investment and led to the development of the impoverished country. But the discovery is a bad omen for the population of occupied Afghanistan. The presence of the minerals may lead to greater conflict in a country which already has more than its share of crises, the war being just one of them. The vast scale of Afghanistan's mineral wealth is likely to transform the region into an arena of intense competition between the various competing actors. The presence of natural deposits can often turn out to be a curse rather than a blessing for the peoples of the countries concerned. For instance, the discovery of oil has led to unending conflict in some regions where it was found.

In an attempt to get hold of the resources, international and regional powers will jump into the likely fray resulting from the discovery of the minerals. The Indian mines minister recently announced that India will take measure for training of Afghans and to establish avenues for bilateral cooperation in the field of minerals. China, which also intends to dominate the development of Afghanistan's mineral wealth, has already signed a $3 billion deal to mine cooper in Afghanistan's Logar province. As well as the United States itself, Russia and Iran will also try to get involved. All this will lead to still greater instability in the country and the region.

The discovery is certain to have an impact on the US-Nato operations in Afghanistan. The Taliban can be expected to put up a greater fight so as to retain control of areas known to be mineral-rich. At the same time, it could spark fierce competition among the various tribal factions in Afghanistan.

It had already been known that Afghanistan is well endowed with mineral reserves, but most of the resources remained unexploited due to the constant war situation since the end of the 1970s, as well as the country's rugged terrain and lack of infrastructure. Meanwhile, lack of technical know-how and outdated technology hampered the process.

Some analysts say that the ominous timing is of the discovery is an attempt by the US military establishment to continue the occupation of the country. A geological survey of Afghanistan had been carried out by the US in 2007 but its findings were deliberately kept undisclosed. According to the New York Times, NATO officials revealed that private security companies "are using American money to bribe the Taliban" to fuel the insurgency. So it is clear that part of the US military establishment is not in favour of the withdrawal of US forces, which is scheduled to start in July 2011. Apparently these elements are leaving no stone unturned to force US forces to continue their presence in Afghanistan. This could seriously undermine US efforts to win over Afghans, in a bid to defeat the Taliban.

Revelation of the discovery of the minerals in Afghanistan can also be an attempt to mobilise political support by some vested interests intending to keep the US occupation of the country well beyond July 2011, the time announced by President Obama for the beginning of the process of withdrawal of US troops. The revelation will also invigorate the interest of other allied countries in Afghanistan. It may also be an attempt to create the false impression that if the US departs from Afghanistan soon, it will lose out the vast amount of mineral wealth to other regional powers like Russia and China, India and Iran.

The writer is a freelance contributor. Email: rizwanasghar7@yahoo.com

[The News]

Tags:

Afghanistan

NATO

Taliban

Helmand Province

Kandahar

Kabul