Primer: Afghanistan
Operation Mixed Messages: On Recent Developments in Afghanistan
By Michael Norris. Illustration by Nayana Rathmalgoda
“Ask and you shall receive?”
All General Stanley McChrystal, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, wanted for Christmas was 40, 000 additional troops. The need for additional forces stemmed from the dramatic increase in violence over 2009, which saw record numbers of Afghan civillians and NATO troops killed. Barack Obama approved a 30,000-troop increase last November, taking the US military commitment beyond 100,000. Although Obama’s increase was 10,000 less than McChrystal requested, the latter believes that NATO will make “tremendous progress” with the new numbers. It is hoped that the surge will enable NATO forces to quell the Taliban-supported insurgency long enough to recruit and train local Afghan troops, who currently number just 50,000 due to high rates of desertion and difficulties in recruitment.
Kevin’s ruddy choice
What does this troop increase mean for Australia? Given the US is Australia’s foremost strategic partner, pressure will be placed on Kevin Rudd to bolster Australia’s commitment, which currently stands at 1,550 following a sizeable increase in April 2009. The Rudd Government repeatedly stresses that Australia’s contribution of the ninth largest troop contingent in Afghanistan is proportional. What Rudd doesn’t say, however, is that Australia was one of the first three countries to pledge support alongside American military action. Australia is a senior partner in the war, and our contribution should arguably be proportional to the leading role we played in its beginnings.
When Rudd met the President in November 2009, Afghanistan dominated the agenda. Rudd pledged an additional 200 support personnel for the war effort, but no additional combat troops. He managed to dodge a bullet in November, but it’s unlikely he can continue to do so. Eventually, he will have to make a choice between the US-Australia partnership and his political image.
Just the two of us
Rudd’s decision will be based on the credit he gives to the US-Australian alliance. Australia’s relationship with the US extends well beyond the Bush-Howard era, to the Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) Treaty in 1951. Since then, Australia has supported US military endeavours in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan. The alliance between Australia and the US owes much to joint combat operations, as well as Australia’s keen understanding of the benefits of following the US on the global political stage.
To increase, or not to increase, that is the question…
It is within Australia’s interest to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a breeding ground for terrorism, so our security interests are closely aligned with those of the US. The attempt on December 25th, 2009 to detonate liquefied explosives on an aeroplane flying to Detroit demonstrated that the threat of terrorism is alive and well. Moreover, Afghanistan’s role as a safe haven for the insurgency, which threatens to destabilise nuclear-armed Pakistan, provides another reason for an Australian presence in South Asia.
Shopping for votes
Domestic politics is the eternal counterweight to international policy. Support for Australia’s involvement in foreign combat operations is steadily slipping. We’re not alone: recent polls show that support for the war in Britain and the US is also waning, following high casualties in 2009. If Rudd were to increase Australia’s troop contingent, it is likely to damage his prospects of re-election.
Rudd’s reluctance
Rudd’s hesitancy may also be based on the indecision of the current US President. Obama has long described the war in Afghanistan as a necessity, but is struggling to justify prolonged US participation in the country. Indeed, the eagerness of Obama to exit from his predecessor’s war is evidenced by his timetable to withdraw US forces, beginning in 2011. To begin withdrawal next year jeopardises the chances of a successful outcome, military commanders tell us. At present, NATO forces are not only battling insurgents and the influence of the Taliban, but are also engaged in training the Afghan armed forces and physical and political rebuilding. NATO forces can only achieve these goals if they are there for a sustained time period and follow coherent strategies. Without the genuine commitment of NATO leaders, the efforts in Afghanistan will fail.
Peace returns slowly
The increase in US forces alongside the timetable for withdrawal sends the wrong message to the Taliban and the Afghani people. It shows the power of electoral concerns over effective policy-making, it inspires insurgents to persist with their attacks, and it deepens cynicism of the Western world in the Middle East. Long-term approaches, although unpopular, are the only way to secure victory – or at the least, credible draws – in theatres like Afghanistan. Success in Afghanistan is in the Australian interest, but Rudd should send more troops only when and if NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan is for the long haul.
Comments
“It is within Australia’s interest to prevent Afghanistan from returning to a breeding ground for terrorism.”
Wouldn’t it be in our interest to sever our ties with the US and stop participating in aggressive, illegal and grossly unethical imperialistic activities which create, motivate and prolong ‘terrorism’?
The Taliban were not responsible for the New York attacks on the 11th of September, 2001. They were actually willing to cooperate in the extradition of suspects to the US, on the grounds that sufficient evidence was provided – it never was and it never has been. The US acted belligerently and bombed/invaded Afghanistan hastily without a legitimate ‘just cause’, taking advantage of world-wide sympathy and exploiting the opportunity for both propaganda and geopolitical reasons – prior to the attacks, the Taliban were aligned with the US. Surprise, Surprise, the Taliban became an enemy when tensions arose over the Trans-Afghan oil pipeline.
It is true that the Taliban consists of militants and extremists from the Mujahideen, as does many Islamic terrorist cells/groups. The Mujahideen, however, were originally a paramilitary force initiated and funded by the CIA to fight the Soviets. As such, Afghanistan was used as a proxy state during the Cold War. When the Soviets retreated, the Mujahideen took no time in noticing that the US was guilty of the very same thing as their Soviet enemies – occupation. Additionally, support for Israeli terrorism, occupation of the territories and US military facilities in Saudi Arabia all factor into the hatred necessary for terrorism to exist. ‘Success’ in Afghanistan will not do anything to solve this issue.
The vast majority of suspects were citizens of Saudi Arabia – including Osama Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia is a strong US ally, providing not only oil, but also massive financial assistance.
Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy in any traditional and even linguistic sense. There is not even consensus as to what ‘terrorism’ even means. If it means the use of violence and/or intimidation of civilian populations in order to achieve ones ends, then this includes those ‘fighting’ this tactic, especially the US.
There was no national body solely responsible for harbouring these terrorists. Suspects were trained and funded from all regions of the world, particularly Saudi Arabia, but also France, Germany and even the US. Why weren’t these countries also targeted? How can one declare war on one nation, when terrorism transcends national/international boundaries? So this is either proto-nationalist or post-nationalist combat.
Our continued alliance with the US will remain to antagonise potential and current ‘terrorists’ and will threaten our national security. Afghanistan was originally a ‘breeding ground for terrorism’ because the US, our ally, created those terrorists.
Whatever your opinion on the original invasion, this article is dealing with the current situation in Afghanistan and Australia’s part in it. I doubt that many people believe that we should have been there in the first place, but now that we are, what is the responsible course of action when pulling troops out could produce a situation like that in Iraq after the Gulf War? How do we balance our alliance with the US with our own social conscience, and how will a government elected on promises to reduce troop numbers retain credibility if they don’t?
Personally, I feel that throwing our troops after the US’ into every situation is extremely irresponsible, and that an international trade agreement (which gains little for us anyway) is not worth international unrest and the expected increase in international terrorism (not that we’ve seen any of that here yet), and certainly isn’t worth the loss of the nation’s confidence in their elected government.
You have missed the point of my response. I was arguing was that our continued participation with the US’ ‘geopolitical’ (a post-Marxist buzz word to replace imperialism) ventures will continue to make Australia a threat to Islamist violence. This includes retaining troops within Afghanistan. Objectives don’t even seem to be clear. If it is to eliminate the Taliban, how will this prevent future acts of ‘terrorism’? I made it clear in my response that the Taliban did not have anything to with the 2001 attacks. We scoff at those that still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible, but by equal measure, many still accept that the Taliban were. There is no difference.