Has NATO failed in Afghanistan?
By Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

THE answer to the question is yes and no. The supporters of NATO’s presence invariably argue that NATO is doing good job and it needs to be strengthened. In this connection not only efforts are being made to convince Germans to send more troops.

A spokesman of the German Defense Ministry has confirmed that request to increase the German forces has been received but so far no clear decision has been made though signals to send another 250 men emanated from German sources. The Pentagon has already decided to send around 3200 marines with a view to beef up the existing troops.

The realists argue that NATO forces have not yet made any major dent to the Taliban strength and therefore they concluded that NATO has failed to attain its objectives. Many convincing reasons are put forward to support the argument that NATO has failed so far in realizing its stated objectives.

However before one discusses the factors that have effectively impeded NATO’s progress, it need to be highlighted that there exist two groups among the realists.

One group believes that NATO has failed while the other only stress that NATO is failing but has not yet completely failed. Among the reasons for NATO’s failure include insufficient numbers, internal division among the NATO members over its presence in Afghanistan, weakening of international resolve, mounting regional challenges, growing lack of confidence among the Afghan people with regard to NATO’s determination and ability to stabilize the country, the presence of drug barons, corruption among the Afghan officials etc.

Most sources clearly state that the total number of ISAF/NATO forces is no more than 40,000. Given the nature of terrain and the popularity of Taliban, this number is grossly insufficient. While the American forces in Iraq are over 150,000, the forces in Afghanistan are meager 40,000. Out of these 40,000 no more than 20,000 are combat forces. The other 20,000 troops are not fighting but are merely performing police duties in one form or the other.

The division within the ranks of NATO members has also weakened NATO’s ability to effectively check the Taliban resurgence. To secure a small contingent of force from various members does not appear to be an easy task. Many NATO members are unwilli8ng to send combat troops despite the repeated requests by the American officials.

The difference in attitude towards the Afghan situation between the Americans/English and other members is too pronounced to ignore. The third factor resolves around rapidly weakening of international resolve. In 2001 the international determination to deal with Taliban and to reconstruct Afghanistan was indeed very impressive.

Over the years not only the international community has become extremely slow even delivering the promised economic aid to Afghanistan but the attitudes are gradually changing. It seems that fatigue syndrome is setting in.
The fourth factor that is contributing substantively towards effective arrest of NATO’s progress in Afghanistan is the mounting regional challenges. Not only violence has registered substantive increase over the years but Taliban has regrouped and reemerged as a formidable fighting force.

The Taliban continue to violate the border of the neighboring countries despite the existence of adequate measures introduced by the respective neighbors.

According to a recently released report violence has risen 27 percent in the past year with 39 percent in crease in attacks in nation’s eastern provinces where most US troops operate and a 60 percent surge in the province of Helmand where the Taliban resurgence has been the strongest.

The phenomenon of suicide bombing has markedly widened. In 2007 suicide bombing rose to 140 incidents whereas only five incidents took place during 2001 and 2005. The suicide bombing caused human and material losses to both the foreign troops as well as the Afghan civilians.

The fifth factor revolves around the rapidly changing attitude of the Afghan people. Initially a sizable number of Afghan people were hopeful that ISAF/NATO would soon be able to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan but after the passage of five years with no notable successes, the attitudes are radically changing. The inability of ISAF/NATO to deliver has disappointed many Afghans though the officials continue to eulogize in support of ISAF/NATO.

By and large many Afghans now view the once hailed liberation army as an occupying force now. Inability to defeat Taliban despite being equipped with all the latest and sophisticated tools of war, the Afghan people are loosing confidence in their presence and some Afghans have now begun to sympathize with the Taliban.

Taliban are native whereas ISAF/NATO is all foreigners. Besides, the indiscriminate bombing have killed many Afghan civilian which in turn has also taken a heavy toll of Afghan patience. Cognizant of ground realities in Afghanistan, many westerns are beginning to write articles such as ‘NATO not winning in Kabul’ or ‘NATO should not be fighting war in Afghanistan’ with the objective of highlighting the dire need to pull out. Simultaneously the NATO commanders are also employing diversionary tactics and are engaged to put the blame on neighbors.

Pakistan is the major target of blame game as they often stress that Pakistan is not doing enough even though they are well familiar that Pakistan’s contributions towards the elimination of terrorism is massive and no other country could even come close to its efforts.

To lend credibility to their carefully devised accusations, they sometimes undertake strikes on Pakistani areas adjacent to Durand line.

The media invariably extends unlimited support and frequently publishes baseless stories about the presence of Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders on Pakistani soil without providing any convincing proof. Recently released reports by both ‘The Atlantic Council’ and ‘The Afghanistan Study Group’ have clearly revealed the need to overhaul NATO strategy before the augured new offensive by Taliban in coming spring. They have recommended that Washington should appoint a special envoy, integrate security and reconstruction work, beef up the troops and arrange conferences with both Pakistan and Iran.

Undoubtedly Pakistan is a country that should have been engaged in a constructive manner right from the beginning rather than dwelling heavily on diversionary tactics to hide their own failures by putting blame on Pakistan.

Pakistan has repeatedly stressed its interests in stabilizing Afghanistan for a variety of reasons. It is indeed a matter of satisfaction that some sections of western society are beginning to reconcile with ground realities.●