Who Failed Afghanistan? Who will help it to succeed?

 

The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was a multinational military mission in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2014. It was established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386 pursuant to the Bonn Agreement, which outlined the establishment of a permanent Afghan government following the U.S. invasion in October 2001. ISAF's primary goal was to train the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and assist Afghanistan in rebuilding key government institutions, though it gradually took part in the broader war in Afghanistan against the Taliban insurgency.

ISAF's initial mandate was to secure the Afghan capital of Kabul and its surrounding area against opposition forces to facilitate the formation of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. In 2003, NATO took command of the mission at the request of the UN and Afghan government, marking its first deployment outside Europe and North America. Shortly thereafter the UN Security Council expanded ISAF's mission to provide and maintain security beyond the capital region. It gradually broadened its operations in four stages, and by 2006 took responsibility for the entire country; ISAF subsequently engaged in more intensive combat in southern and eastern Afghanistan.

From 2006 until 2014, NATO debate on ISAF centred around means instead of ends: how the burden of fighting should be equally distributed among the member states; what operational concepts like the “comprehensive approach” or “counterinsurgency”—often wrongly termed “strategies”—should be followed, or how to “transition” to Afghan responsibility. Pursuant to its ultimate aim of transitioning security responsibilities to Afghan forces, ISAF ceased combat operations and was disbanded in December 2014. A number of troops remained to serve a supporting and advisory role as part of its successor organization, the Resolute Support Mission.

The decision to launch a follow-on, NATO-led non-combat mission to continue supporting the development of the Afghan security forces after the end of ISAF’s mission in December 2014 was jointly agreed between Allies and partners with the Afghan government at the NATO Summit in Chicago in 2012. This commitment was reaffirmed at the Wales Summit in 2014.

Resolute Support was a NATO-led, non-combat mission. The mission was established at the invitation of the Afghan government and in accordance with United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2189 of 2014. Its purpose was to help the Afghan security forces and institutions develop the capacity to defend Afghanistan and protect its citizens in the long term. 38 Countries (Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom an United States) had posted their personnel to the mission in Afghanistan at different points in time.

In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of international forces from Afghanistan by May 2021.

On 14 April 2021, recognising that there is no military solution to the challenges Afghanistan faces, the Allies decided to start the withdrawal of RSM forces by 1 May 2021.

NATO’s assumption of ISAF command on the one hand, and ISAF expansion on the other did not go hand in hand with a total revision of the DOD’s (US Department of Defence) position. Not only the sentiments of the “unilateralist” major US but the emotions of the non-Muslim world post “9/11”, which pushed NATO to be engaged in Afghanistan as intensely as possible − even without clearly defined political goals. This was not a conscious project but an unintended result of the colluding interests of the political masters in NATO countries with those of their administrative cadres. UN was made the Accidental Front.

The Afghans now have suffered generation after generation of not just continuous warfare but humanitarian crises, one after the other, and the world has to remember that this is not a civil war that the Afghans started among themselves that the rest of the world got sucked into. This situation was triggered by an outside invasion, initially by the Soviet Union, during the Cold War, and since then the country has been a battleground for regional and global powers seeking their own security by trying to militarily intervene in Afghanistan, whether it be the United States after 2001, the C.I.A. in the nineteen-eighties, Pakistan through its support first for the Mujahedeen and later the Taliban, or Iran and its clients. To blame Afghans for not getting their act together in light of that history is just wrong.

In the nineteen-nineties, there were only three governments in the world that recognized the Taliban: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. And this time around, too, Pakistan will be one of them. It isn’t the nineties, but Pakistan is still in the same awkward place that it was last time around. The Saudis and the Emiratis have a new geopolitical outlook. But China is not the same country that it was in the nineties. How will China support Pakistan in trying to manage a second Taliban regime, especially one that may attract sanctions or other kinds of pressure from the United States and its allies is something to be watched? Flirting with Taliban will blow back on Pakistan in one way or another, be that in the form of international pressure or instability.

Biden Administration is unlikely to change its policy. US cannot reverse the Taliban’s momentum without bombing Afghanistan to shards. US can certainly take responsibility for the lion’s share of the response to this unfolding humanitarian crisis to arrest the setting in of another massive refugee flow, which could certainly have political consequences.

US does what it likes – be it in Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq or Afghanistan – the rest of the countries either support or keep quiet, few feeble voices of dissent are barely audible noises. This is called - जिसकी लाठी उसकी भैंस (Literally it means, he who has the stick gets to own the buffalo or One who owns power owns everything). But what would one say to the situation when the stick-owner decides to leave the diseased buffalo in wilderness and simply run away? लाठी वाला तो इस बीमार भैंस को लाचार हालात में छोड़़कर भाग छूटा है, अब यह बेचारी बीमार भैंस किसकी जिम्मेदारी है, कौन करेगा इसकी देखभाल और तीमारदारी?

*****

 

First posted on 28 Aug 2021

***

 

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

***

 

On not paying attention in history classes

Some of the comments made by the political leaders of India in the parliament during the debate on CAB have shown how hollow they are in their information and knowledge, while they strut and masquerade as the intellectuals and the educated, they say what they say; and the equally brilliant editors of the TV channels and newspapers construct “headlines” out of such nonsensical utterances.

One gentleman by the name Shashi Tharoor said something like, “Amit Shah the Home Minister was not paying attention in the history class as the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League were the only ones espousing the two-nation theory.”

“The foundation for the two-nation theory was laid by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and not the Congress” another gentleman by the name Manish Tewari senior party leader said besides alleging, “BJP was trying to undermine BR Ambedkar's legacy.”

I do not know about Amit Shah but I must confess that I was not paying much attention in the history classes taught to me by Shri H S Hiran and Shri D L Suredia; for which reason, I am forced to pay attention now.

For my kith and kin who would share my claim of much lower intellect than the shining stars of Indian political debates; here is what I can share. 

[Please click on the attachments and read them if you were not paying attention in the history class]

---------------------------

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.

Will China review its “love-affair” with Pakistan?

A single seamless socio-economic and cultural entity before 1947, once divided into Pakistan and India, the two divisions have now completely drifted apart. Despite being neighbours, India and Pakistan are among the least integrated nations in the world. Because of their unending mutual hostility, South Asia too has become the least integrated region in the world. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is in a coma. Sadly, the most populous region in the world has also remained home to the largest number of poor people in the world.

Some 10-12 years back, we had the opportunity to discuss with the then Dean of LUMS (Lahore University of Management Sciences) Prof Zahoor Hassan, with whom we had signed an inter-institutional cooperation agreement, about mutually beneficial economic cooperation between Pakistan and India. He thought that an intense Indo-phobia among many of the influential people in Pakistan stood in the way, who called India, the enemy nation. He also referred to similar picture of Pakistan, the enemy nation, in the minds of influential people in India. Clearly, feeling of “national pride” is stronger than any feeling of brotherhood on both the sides.

After Pakistan's unprovoked attacks on India, carried out by the Dirty-tricks-wings – JeM and LeT – of the Army and Inter-Services Intelligence Agency of Pakistan, were ignored by the international community, India had no choice but to carry out its own strikes against the JeM training bases and infrastructure that were threatening her. Many of the world leaders had disregarded Pakistan's evident intentions to bleed and harm India for a long time.

Unfortunately, some news outlets and Indian politicians have been attempting to create a narrative to lead people to believe that the Pakistani threats are over exaggerated by India for internal political purposes. Pakistan establishment, however, continues to demonstrate their intentions not only with their denials, tacit support to militants as well as refusal to act upon India’s complaints. Since last 30 years or so, Pakistan has been shelling and firing across the LOC into India, and have also used proxies, such as LeT and JeM, to attack India viciously. Pakistan appears to have India solidly in its cross-hairs.

Apparently in a rush to provide cover for Pakistan, some Western countries have also, for years, been attempting to tell the public that there is a difference between "moderate" Pakistani politicians and the “army” hardliners and that the politicians are helpless before the army. Unfortunately, that distinction is make-believe and most of such countries are realising their folly in such an assumption.

China, of course, has become a new factor influencing India’s negative attitude towards Pakistan, both among policy-makers and the common people. China should value the efforts made by India for stability in the region. This is of interest not only for India but for China, too. China can become a part of the solution, rather than being perceived as a part of the India-Pakistan problem. A new ray of hope came on Monday 01 April when China claimed that "positive progress" has been made on designating Pakistan-based JeM chief Masood Azhar as a 'global terrorist' by the UN. China’s relations with India are improving yet have not become rational enough that, instead of siding with Pakistan, China would open the door to strategic cooperation with India.

__________________________________ 

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" welcome.

To ensure the quality of the discussion, comments may be edited for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted.