|
|
Analysis
Tomorrow’s
Afghanistan: Indian Stakes
by
Col. Rahul K. Bhonsle
The mixed bag likely to emerge from
Afghan Presidential elections with the international community having to
bear the brunt of a fractured mandate and the much awaited security
review by Lt General McChrystal, Commander of the International Security
Assistance Force having reached the Pentagon, the intensity of debate on
the country has increased. For India Afghanistan remains a friend in the
neighborhood. India is a key regional player, with the Pakistan factor
determining New Delhi’s level of engagement, a factor which many in the
Indian strategic community resent. But till the two K’s – Kabul and
Kashmir determine Pakistan’s policies a change of heart in Islamabad is
unlikely.
No doubt the ground situation is worsening which ICOS or the erstwhile
Senlis Council having rightly or wrongly indicated Taliban presence in
80 percent of the country providing grist to the mill of nay sayers in
the US as George Will and others who have influenced policy makers with
growing apprehensions over another increase in troop numbers by the
United States. The Brookings Institutions held a debate on Presidential
Elections in the country with Kim Kagan, Antony Cordesman and Bruce
Reidel participating which gave a mixed picture.
Increasing casualties, what may be a flawed Presidential elections and a
depressing security situation has led to the “pacifists” as Will to
recommend an, “off shoring approach”. “Militarists” as Max Boot on the
other hand advocate continued military engagement for the alternative
would be more dangerous, possibly surrendering a, “Caliphate” to the Al
Qaeda and Taliban.
Thankfully President Obama has identified Afghanistan as a war of
necessity and not choice, thus US commitment to Kabul will continue at
least in the short term. The US casualty figure since 2001 remains at
730 plus at last count but rising. If the trend continues the President
may review the obligation but this is not likely to happen in a year or
may be two. Ironically some analyst’s claim that the Soviets withdrew
from Afghanistan just when they were about to win, US and its NATO
allies would thus be wary of the same fate through any precipitate pull
out. Obama may pay heed to what Nobel Prize-winning economist Herbert
Simon once said, “Short term thinking drives out long term strategy,
every time.”
The US military despite wide experience in Vietnam and now Iraq has
failed to adopt a viable counter insurgency policy translated into
effective rules of engagement for soldiers on the ground. Norman
Schwarzkopf who had a wide exposure in Vietnam had suggested, “nativisation”
and people centricity as the two main components for success. General
McChrystal may be reaching similar conclusions and thus deserves a fair
chance.
Looking beyond security, there is much to cheer in the country on all
fronts, education, health care, infra structure, roads and power lines,
mobile towers and so on. The UNODC has also indicated that there is a
drop in poppy cultivation and drug production by over 20 percent this
year. In the social sphere as well there is progress with breaking of
the “burqa” barrier for women, a change in whose lives is always an
important barometer.
The extensive debate on Afghanistan should hopefully strengthen US
resolve to stay on till adequate capacity of Afghan security forces and
civil administration is built up. This may take in terms of numbers half
a decade and capability 10 years or more. Will the American public give
this much time to their President will determine the outcome in the long
term?
The present Indian engagement is primarily economic and development with
low key security in terms of training. An opposing view seeks military
presence. Most old hands know that combating militancy in an alien land
is the toughest challenge as the Indian armed forces realized in Sri
Lanka. The enormous good will that India has amongst the Afghan people
is likely to evaporate due to natural antipathy that develops between
counter militants and the populace subtly exploited by terrorists. A
military “alliance” with forces following kinetic tactics as against
the, “iron fist in velvet gloves” policy of the Indian Army will be hard
to sustain at home.
Yet remaining engaged in Afghanistan is important for India, for the
spread of Al Qaeda and the Taliban will destabilize an already unstable
region. Given the current strategic configuration, aid and trade appears
the key tools of engagement. Sharing our extensive counter militancy
experience is another important facet. Our experience gives us an
opportunity to speak and write more on Afghanistan contributing
positively to the general debate. Three years, from 2006 when militancy
commenced in earnest to date, is a short period in an insurgency where
success is measured in terms of decades rather than years.
So the international community needs to invest in, “time” as much in
military boots on the ground and development assistance, will do so
remains a question which perhaps even President Obama may not be clear
as much as others?
September 13, 2009
Top
|
Analysis
|
|
