LONDON - Coalition forces in Afghanistan
could find it easier to fly in than fly out of
what is emerging as a trap for them.
The
forces, led by the United States and increasingly
Britain, have been facing mounting attacks. In the
most audacious of these, US troops and others were
killed last week in an attack near the US Embassy
in Kabul, considered about the safest area in
Afghanistan.
British troops have been
taking more and more casualties over
recent
weeks through their deployment in southern
Afghanistan, after an agreement under which the
United States insisted that Britain share some of
the hottest front lines with US forces.
International forces are present in
Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom,
which is supported by 27 countries. This force has
19,000 soldiers, mostly from the US, supported by
special forces from Canada, Denmark, France and
Britain. Forces from 36 countries have also been
gathered under the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF), which has now been asked
to control southern Afghanistan. Its troop
strength is soon to be raised to 17,000.
In southern Iraq, British troops, who form
a sizable part of ISAF, have had a far easier run
than embattled US forces in Baghdad and Fallujah.
Now it is the southern part of Afghanistan that is
seeing the highest levels of violence,
particularly in Helmand and Kandahar provinces.
The Senlis Council, an independent
think-tank studying the impact of drug policies,
particularly in Afghanistan, reported last week
that the Taliban in effect now control the
southern half of Afghanistan (see 'Taliban taking over',
September 8). The report blamed poppy eradication
for creating a situation that has deprived people
of their livelihood and driven many people into
the arms of the Taliban.
The report also
said that faulty development policies were
strengthening the Taliban. These policies have
meant very little development outside of Kabul and
very large spending on defense and security
measures.
The increased volatility has
posed great difficulties for the coalition troops
and for the governments who have decided to send
them there. At the obvious security level, the
question is whether these troops can stand their
ground in the face of rising attacks.
"The
answer to that question is really based on whether
or not the international community has the
stamina, the commitment to go on supporting the
Afghan government in its efforts to bring about
security and reconstruction," said Colonel
Christopher Langton, of the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
"If it has the stamina - and we hope it
does - then there is every chance that the
insurgency will die down as the benefits of
newfound prosperity are seen among the Afghan
population."
Newfound prosperity? What
large numbers of Afghans are seeing is newfound
poverty.
Emmanual Reinert, executive
director of the Senlis Council, said that in
Kandahar in the south "kids are dying almost every
day" from malnutrition in refugee camps.
And the Taliban have pounced on this
situation, Reinert said. "All this is being used
by the Taliban to say ... 'When we were there we
were maybe hard and cruel, but you could feed the
family. Now look what's going on.' They are more
and more providing support, social services to the
local population."
And so the coalition
forces are stuck with military options to deal
with what is primarily a problem of development,
or the lack of it.
The strong tactics have
failed to reduce opium cultivation - it has in
fact risen alarmingly. Several reports suggest
that the Taliban could be promoting opium
cultivation while poor farmers suffer.
The
militaristic approach to combat cultivation has
not worked. A United Nations study documents a 59%
increase in opium cultivation to 165,000 hectares
of poppy fields this year.
"Blood money is
funding the salary of the Taliban's weapons and
role of active insurgents actively participating
in the trade," United Nations drugs chief Antonio
Maria Costa told a news conference in Brussels on
Tuesday. The UN is concerned that the bumper crop
is helping fuel the deadly Taliban-led insurgency
in the south. Costa said: "I call on NATO [the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization] forces to
destroy heroin labs, disband the open opium
bazaars, attack the opium convoys and bring to
justice the big traders. I invite coalition
countries to give NATO the mandate and resources
required."
The poppy-eradication program
imposed on farmers is intended to cut the source
of heroin supply to the West. The Senlis Council
argues that this action is far too drastic; poppy
cultivation could be continued instead under
controls, and the crop used for production of
morphine and codeine, both in short supply around
the world.
This crisis translates directly
into both a security threat for the coalition
forces and a rise in the strength of the Taliban.
"What the Taliban are using this for is to
say to farmers that, on the one hand, we can
protect you if you will come on to our side and
thereby protect the livelihood of the farmers,"
Langton said.
"And this is the issue. How
do you have a replacement livelihood? Is it a
replacement crop, which is very hard to develop,
or is it a replacement livelihood of another type,
maybe diversify the activities of the farming
communities in Afghanistan?"
The coalition
forces and the government in Afghanistan need to
develop a new livelihood for dispossessed farmers
if they are to succeed. "The Taliban rely on the
support of the individuals in the population,
individual villagers, individual village elders
and the like, and if they move away, there won't
be support for the Taliban," Langton said.
But there is almost no alternative on
offer to the affected farmers, nor is that a
priority. The coalition troops that removed the
Taliban from power in Afghanistan more than four
years back may only have encouraged the revival of
the Taliban.
"I think the word 'revival'
isn't quite the right word, in that the Taliban
have never gone away since 2001," Langton said.
"They withdrew into their recruiting areas on the
Durrand Line inside Afghanistan and Pakistan [the
line drawn under British occupation through
Pashtun areas]. So they haven't revived. But I'd
say it's resurgence in certain tactical areas."
It has always been the intention of the
Taliban to do this, Langton said. "And now they
foresee - either correctly or incorrectly, we
don't know yet - the opportunity for a changeover
from the American-dominated military posture in
the south to the NATO-dominated military posture."
This is seen by the Taliban "as a possible
opportunity, maybe a possible weakening in the
coalition posture", Langton said. "That is
probably an erroneous calculation, but
nevertheless it is easy to see how they might see
this as an opportunity, a changeover where less
experienced troops arrive on the ground, troops
from countries where the internal debate at home
is difficult for the government when it comes to
sustaining these operations, unlike with
Washington."
The troops are now on a front
line where their government's policies mean that
the enemy is getting stronger. And the stronger
they get and the more they attack the coalition
forces, the more vulnerable their position could
become. Afghanistan now confronts a situation
where it might see neither development nor
security.
