Afghan peacekeeping overshadowed By Melek Zimmer-Zahine
KABUL - Each month since United States President Barack Obama has taken office,
Afghanistan has seen a growing number of civilian and military deaths - a
spiral of violence that has served to destabilize a nation already struggling
to recover from its previous three decades of war.
Nearly a decade after the September 11, 2009, World Trade Center bombings in
New York, international military operations in Afghanistan are no longer about
preventing Afghanistan from becoming another safe haven for al-Qaeda, but about
their own survival.
Every student of counter-insurgency knows that when force protection becomes a
priority over winning over the local
population, you might as well pack up your bags and go home.
This past week highlights just how much damage Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
- US combat operation - and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) missions
have caused in the country: the badly coordinated operation in Kunduz which
resulted in so many civilian deaths (September 2); a subsequent rift between
NATO and OEF commanders; the US military raid on a Swedish Committee hospital
(September 7); and, somehow related, the abhorrent behavior of US embassy
security contractors (established by an independent probe report).
Major intelligence agencies announced more than a year ago that al-Qaeda's
leadership and organizational apparatus have shifted to East Africa and
Pakistan.
Nearly every terrorist attack on US interests or its allies since September 11,
2001, such as those in Riyadh, Madrid, London and Istanbul, were initiated and
coordinated not from Afghanistan but from cells within the heart of Europe or
Pakistan.
And, the message that al-Qaeda will return if the international community
allows the Taliban to take over Afghanistan is a misrepresentation of the
facts, a fear tactic used by politicians in Washington and NATO headquarters in
Brussels meant to buy the time needed for a face-saving withdrawal.
Tragically, by misrepresenting both the al-Qaeda and Taliban threats, such a
face-saving withdrawal will be a distant accomplishment at the cost of many
more civilians and a growing number of foreign soldiers while further
destabilizing Afghanistan during an already sensitive and potentially volatile
election period.
Indeed, the Taliban are a threat, but the threat is only as big as the West
makes it. Trying to defeat them militarily is like throwing fuel on a fire.
The Taliban were a problem for the vast majority of Afghans before 9/11 and
they will continue to be a problem for Afghanistan unless a locally driven
solution is given the political and public space to grow.
Currently the NATO and OEF missions dominate this space.
As with any extreme and violent social problem, the solution to the Taliban can
only come from deep within Afghan society. Though the comparison is not
entirely accurate, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK - a white supremacist group) violated
and terrorized African Americans, Jews and other minorities in the United
States for more than 50 years.
It wasn't until Americans themselves decided to organize socially, politically
and legally that the KKK's power was suppressed.
Imagine if a foreign military attempted to solve the KKK problem for America?
In the case of Afghanistan, a foreign-dominated effort to eliminate the Taliban
is not only a reality but also a violation of every Afghan’s sovereign right to
deal with a complex, domestic problem.
If the friends of Afghanistan truly want to prevent the Taliban from gaining
more ground and becoming another safe haven for al-Qaeda, then the best thing
they can do is pressure Pakistan to continue its fight against extremism and,
within Afghanistan, take a step back and allow Afghans the room to organize
themselves and seize the political and public space to deal with all three
elements of the Taliban - the Haqqani network, Hibz-e-Islami and local Taliban
- through a partnership of grassroots and national efforts.
The vast majority of Afghans, even those who have been affected by
international combat operations, say that a complete withdrawal of
international forces is not the solution and would further destabilize the
country. Instead, a fundamental shift is needed in how OEF and NATO operate in
this country.
As one illiterate cook from Hazarijat said to me recently, "I was really happy
when Western forces first came to Afghanistan but the way they have handled
themselves has been unfortunate. Still, if they leave things could be worse."
The question for the politicians who manage the OEF and NATO missions in
Washington and around the world shouldn't be "how can we reduce the incidents
of civilian casualties in Afghanistan" but how can we make a fundamental shift
from our combat mission to one of robust peacekeeping, ANA (Afghan army) and
ANP (Afghan police) training and better coordinated, less wasteful assistance
from their donor agencies.
There is already a debate in Germany and Britain about the role that their
militaries should be playing in Afghanistan and in the world.
This same debate needs to start in earnest among the US public, their
representatives in Congress, the Obama administration and by the Pentagon and
it should start with the question, "How can America and its allies expect
Afghanistan to become a peaceful, productive member of the global community in
the midst of what is now their own nearly decade-old foreign military action in
this country?"
Melek Zimmer-Zahine is a co-founder of The Killid Group. Inter Press
Service and Killid, an independent Afghan media, have been partners since 2004.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
