The confusion that passes for Washington's Afghanistan policy was once again in evidence in the statement by United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta that the drawdown of American combat troops is expected to begin sometime in 2013, a year ahead of the earlier timetable. The statement created a stir from D.C to Delhi, and has added to the uncertainty that hangs over Afghanistan. With the Obama Administration balancing domestic calculations in an election year with international concerns about stability in Afghanistan, several U.S. officials have scrambled to explain Mr. Panetta's statement not as a change of the 2014 deadline, but an underlining of it: that the transition process would have to begin next year in order to meet the deadline. What impact these confusing signals will have on the proposed negotiations with the Taliban, in which the first steps are said to have been already taken, can only be guessed. The “reconciliation talks” are predicated on the premise that the Taliban are now a weakened force, and would therefore be willing to make a compromise agreement with other Afghan political stakeholders. The reality is that the Taliban are nowhere near defeat and the Afghan government forces are nowhere near capable of maintaining peace and security. With regional players such as Pakistan, India and Iran and international big powers all jostling to position themselves in the so-called Afghan endgame, the situation can only get more muddied.
In all this, only one thing is clear: Afghan civilians have borne the worst of more than a decade of war, and they will continue to do as long as that country is viewed more as a geo-strategic piece of real estate rather than as a nation with real people. The latest United Nations report on civilian casualties provides the depressing information that 3,021 civilians were killed in Afghanistan from January to December 2011, an increase of eight per cent over 2010 (2,790), and 25 per cent over 2009 (2,412). Of last year's toll, 77 per cent, or 2,332 deaths were attributed to the Taliban and other militants, such as the Haqqani network and the Hizb-e-Islami. Tellingly, civilian deaths from aerial attacks by security forces increased in 2011, despite the decrease in the number of such aerial attacks and the fewer number of civilian deaths attributed to the security forces. Afghanistan's tragedy today, much of it scripted by the U.S., is that civilians are bound to die as long as western troops remain on its soil, but there is no guarantee of their security if and when these troops depart, as there are no institutions or mechanisms strong enough to maintain the peace — a double jeopardy to which as yet there is no end in sight.
Keywords: Afghanistan troops withdrawal, U.S.-Afghanistan ties, Afghanistan Taliban, Afghanistan international relations
Any discussion on U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan must include a discussion on what happens to the numbers of non-military private security contractors (e.g. Blackwater/Xe/ etc), because only then is the story complete. Jeremey Scahill, an independent journalist in the U.S., has written extensively on the issue; from his field reports in 2009/2010, the number of "private" security personnel in Afghanistan (68,197) exceeded the number of U.S. military personnel (40,000).
It is indeed no surprise that the U.S. position on Afghanistan or for that matter elsewhere seems so confusing. As a democracy, the U.S. government has historically been under pressure from its public to restrict its military adventures abroad. The general public is never happy to see fellow citizens and hard cash expended in a remote corner of the world.
That this often puts the policymakers in Washington at a disadvantage when dealing with despotic regimes. This is the price to be paid for a democratic system as the government cannot always expect its decisions to be backed by the public and may need to correct its course. It is vital however that democratic governments work to convince the public when critical but unpopular decisions need to be taken so that the political machinery does not get jammed or suggest that democratic systems lack the will and perseverance to pursue difficult courses of action.
With an economy riven by unemployment and recession US is desperate to shrink their non-indigenous expenses. This step will help them divert the funds towards central Asia and south-east Asia where china and India pose "unreserved question" before their state of being superpower. The purpose of US intervention anywhere has never been to restore piece and normalcy but to earn some hegemonic milestones. This necessitates India to be doubly cautious. we have to prepare on two fronts viz to mitigate threats possessed by feared rise of Taliban and the cold war that is simmering between two giants US and China. Thanks God! China and Russia vetoed proposed international intervention in Syria. The move would have depleted already eroded US economy and who knows if this could have led to birth of another Taliban like force in Saleh's nation. We must have learnt lessons from US support to Taliban to ward Russia off from Afghanistan which led to spread of this disturbing group.
When Afghanistan is in the immediate vicinity of India, a fact which Pakistan has exploited to the hilt, it is surprising that the editorial does not spell out India's role in the Afghanistan imbroglio. India may not have the stomach to confront Pakistan and and it's most hideous designs in Afghanistan. This, however,does not give India the justification to ostrich-like bury it's head in the sands of indifference. India should play a pro-active role to not only take on Pakistan and its proxies the Taliban, but to also seek international cooperation to make Afghanistan a peaceful and a genuinely neutral country that does not pose a threat to its neighbours.
The aim of U.S.'s step for piece talks with Taliban is unclear. First in 90's, U.S. supported Taliban. Then after 9/11, it started war against Taliban. Now, again U.S. is supporting Taliban.
When the original deadline was set to withdraw the troops in 2014 there is no reason to change the stance and say the withdrawal will commence in 2013. This couls be a part of the election gimmick showing to the people that troops are being withdrawn earlier than planned. People of Afganisthan have suffered a lot during this prolonged occupation of international troops. They were getting killed by both Taliban and international troops. Afganisthan government will not be able to protect it's citizens from Taliban. So withdrawal of American troops should only take place when once it can be proven to the rest of the world Taliban is no more a force to reckon with and that time cannot be predicted by anyone least of all by the politicians whose interest is of course to gain political advantage to regain power.
Please Email the Editor