Friday, August 15, 2003

US in Afghanistan — Reaping hostility

PV Vivekanand

American military behaviour in Afghanistan in the US quest to eliminate all traces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups is alienating the people of the war-shattered country and undermining prospects for the Bush administration's success in its objectives there.

AMERICAN soldiers are slogging along the mountain trails and valleys of Afghanistan in search of what Washington calls remnants of the Taliban regime and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network who escaped the dragnet during the US-led war against that country in retaliation for the Sept.11 attacks.
There is no trace of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and Bin Laden, who carries a $25-million bounty for information leading to his capture or death. Strong signs have emerged that Taliban fighters have regrouped. There is an upsurge in hit-and-run attacks aimed at the US forces and soldiers of the newly-constituted Afghan army.
They have issued warnings that they intend to step up their operations.
Against that backdrop is what could nothing be but a growing hostility towards the Americans among ordinary Afghans if only because the US military is aligned with local warlords, many of whom are accused of committing gross violations of human rights against their own people.
Many conquerers have tried and failed to control Afghanistan -- a key post along the ancient "Silk Route" -- over the centuries and there is no reason to think the US would be able to achieve it despite its super high-tech equipment and military strength. For, that is the very nature of the country, its terrain and its people, and it is absolutely vital that they have close alliances with powerful Afghan groups. 
The mighty British army and Imperial Russia vied with each other for control of Afghanistan in the 19th century, and both gave up.
The Russians came back again in 1980 and got bogged down in a proxy war with the US that cost Moscow dearly and forced the Red Army to withdraw unceremoniously.
Today, the mighty American army is in Afghanistan, and, more than one year after the real war was over, it looks like getting mired in a war of attrition with Taliban and Al Qaeda elements as well as fighters of defiant anti-US warlords like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Despite their success in toppling the Taliban regime and wrecking the Al Qaeda group in the war that was launched in October 2001, US soldiers have also been accused of war crimes in Afghanistan. A 45-minute documentary produced by Irish filmmaker Jamie Doran -- The Massacre in Afghanistan: Did the Americans Look On? — was shown in December in one of the main German public channels — ARD. It was previously shown on the British Channel 5 and the Italian station RAI.
The Bush administration reacted angrily to the Germans and said the documentary contained "completely wrong " facts and "unfairly depicts the US mission in Afghanistan.”
The documentary suggested that Taliban and Al Qaeda prisoners were summarily massacred in Kunduz, the Taliban’s last stronghold in northern Afghanistan, in November of 2001 and US soldiers were involved in contravention of all international laws and standards governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
The story of the massacre might or might not be true and has become part of history now, but such allegations give an insight to the reality that the outside world is given controlled information about Afghanistan.

Reaping hatred

If indeed the story of the massacre is accurate, then it does not need much thought to realise that incidents like that would only reap hatred for the Americans among Afghans for having been party, albeit indirectly perhaps, to massacres of their loved ones.
As such, the belief that the shape of things in Afghanistan might not be as good as the Americans try to portray it be is growing around the world.

Semblance of normalcy

Indeed, things are looking up for the Afghans. Life is getting relatively better for them. They are enjoying the newfound freedom from the strictures imposed by the Taliban and the US says it is committed to creating a democratic Afghanistan before leaving the country.
Governance is slowly being institutionalised under the interim administration headed by President Hamid Karzai, who was chosen at Loya Jerga -- traditional assembly of tribal representatives -- in June 2002.
Karzai's mandate runs out in 2004. He faces the task of drafting a new constitution, overseeing the formation of a national army and of preparing for elections at the end of its term.
Plans for general elections are already afoot. A Loya Jerga is scheduled to be held in a few weeks to give shape to a constitution.
Tens of thousands of Afghans who sought refuge in neighbouring countries, mainly Pakistan and Iran, are coming back, and reconstruction is under way although not at a pace that would satisfy the Afghans hungry for early and speedy improvements in daily life.
The international community, prodded by the US, has taken an interest in Afghanistan, partly because world governments do not want to neglect the country and allow Qaeda-like groups to emerge from frustration and despair.
For the first time in decades, there is a government, albeit temporary, and there is a semblance of normalcy.
However, the very diversity of the people of Afghanistan is a major hurdle for the American objective of building a strong and stable country based mostly on good faith and common interests.
And the task is getting murkier with the emergence of signs that the Taliban have implicit control of several regions of the country and Taliban supporters are biding their time in positions of influence.

Main fear

The main fear is that some of the warlords who are openly defying the Karzai government in their areas of influence could find partners from among the Taliban remnants and pose serious problems for the US.
An international think-tank of experts has highlighted that the ethnic Pashtuns -- who represent 45 per cent of the 24 million people of Afghanistan -- are alienated and their lack of representation in the political process could end in disaster
According to the International Crisis Group (ICG), resentment against the government is growing among the Pashtuns -- whose members dominated the Taliban regime -- and adding to the threat of regional instability.
Rivalry between warlords is creating conditions "dangerously close" to those prevailing at the time of the Taliban's emergence in the late 90s, says the group.
"The risk of destabilisation has been given added weight by the re-emergence of senior Taliban commanders who are ready to capitalise on popular discontent," says the report.
The group criticises what it calls violence against Pashtuns in the north and west of Afghanistan and heavy-handed missions by US forces in the southern regions and asserts that these are adding to resentment against the US as well as the Karzai government.
The report cited examples of the "alienation" of the Pashtuns. It said Pashtun traders who traditionally controlled commerce in the country are not welcome in Herat, in western Afghanistan, where local Tajik militias reign supreme.
The Tajiks comprise up to one-fourth of the population and they trace their roots to the northern and north-eastern regions of Afghanistan, near the border with modern-day Tajikistan.
According to the ICG, the Karzai government has been unable to limit the broad powers of the Tajik faction and its monopoly over the government's security institutions.
However, Karzai this week moved against Herat's powerful warlord Ismail Khan by stripping him of his post as military commander of western Afghanistan in a major reshuffle of provincial governors and officials.
It remains to be seen how Khan would respond to the move.
The mounting guerrilla attacks against the US military and Afghan soldiers could be partly linked to the American heavy-handed searches and involvement in factional and personal rivalries, says the ICG report.
American soldiers' interference in local disputes is fomenting distrust and payment to local commanders is encouraging militia membership, it says.
"The US needs to reconcile its short term military objectives with the political goal of rebuilding Afghanistan," according to the think-tank.
"Besides conveying the impression of partisanship in local disputes, the heavy-handed tactics used by coalition forces in some of their operations risk alienating sources of support," it says.
It cites an example: "In simple terms the Pashtuns don't like GIs barging in doors and lifting the burqas of their women."
The potential exists for the Pashtuns to see the Taliban as "a real guarantor of security despite the anti-Taliban rhetoric since 2001," according to Michael Griffin, an expert on Afghanistan.
"The Pashtuns are beginning to lean more closely to this social order."


Measure of stability

The Taliban is credited by the Pashtuns for having brought in a measure of stability after nearly two decades of bloodshed. And the US runs the risk of creating that impression again, the ICG report implies.
Afghan government leaders say Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants find refuge across the border in Pakistan and retreat there after staging attacks.
As an answer to the contention, the Pakistani army has been deployed to parts of the tribal areas in the country's north-west.
It is the first time that Pakistan has sent the army there in a bid to gain control of the tribal areas that have historically been autonomous, governed by tribal leaders under their own laws.
In the meantime, there is no let-up in the US commitment to stay on in Afghanistan, says Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers
During a recent visit to Kabul, he affirmed that the US will stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary and that military operations in post-war Iraq will not undermine the "war on terror."
"The US is committed... to be here as long as it takes to finish the Bonn process," he said, referring to the conference in Germany which established the Karzai administration.
"I don't think the war in Iraq has taken any of the resources away from the fight against international terrorism, specifically Al Qaeda."
Despite the tough talk, the reality on the ground facing the US military might be quite different, analysts suggest.
'It is difficult to estimate at a distance, through the prism of a subservient international media, the impact of months of US bombing and a rising toll of civilian casualties in Afghanistan,"
according to Peter Symods. "There are a growing number of signs, however, which indicate that the US military is not engaged in a mopping up operation but faces Afghan militia groups, previously allied to the Taliban regime, who are sustained by growing local resentment and anger towards Washington," he wrote in March this year.
From the look of things, and from what we hear from Afghanistan, the situation has only turned worse since then.

Human rights violation

One thing is clear: The US, which has political and military imperatives to align itself with some Afghan warlords in the war against Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, is not endearing itself to the Afghans, according to a report prepared by the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) and released on July 29.
The report catalogues the systematic violation of human rights by the militias of the Northern Alliance who were placed in power following the US invasion in late 2001.
“Much of what we describe may at first glance be seen as little more than criminal behaviour," said the report. "But this is a report about human rights violations, as the abuses described were ordered, committed or condoned by government personnel in Afghanistan—soldiers, police, military and intelligence officials, and government ministers..."
The situation today, says the report, is "in large part, the result of decisions, acts, and omissions of the United States government, the government of other coalition members and parts of the transitional Afghan government itself."
While ultimate responsibility and blame lie with Afghan warlords themselves, it said, the US "in particular bears much responsibility for the actions of those they have propelled to power, for failing to take steps against other abusive leaders and for impeding attempts to force them to step aside.”
The HRW report listed many incidents of human rights violation and brutality and pointed out that the Bush administration could not escape blame for the state of affairs since US military forces “co-operate with (and strengthen) commanders in areas within and outside of Kabul.”
Translated on the ground in Afghanistan, it means the US is being seen as the protector of those engage in atrocities against civilian population.
An addendum written by James Conachy to a summary of the 102-page HRW report says:
"One can safely assume that the HRW report provides only a pale indication of the social devastation and political chaos that reign in Afghanistan nearly two years after the American invasion.
"The reality on the ground in the Central Asian country completely exposes the lies that were used to justify the US intervention, whose essential aim was to replace one set of warlords with another that would be more pliable to American interests, above all its designs on the rich oil and natural gas resources in the adjoining Caspian basin."