- SHNS
- Scripps Newspapers
- Abilene Reporter-News
- Anderson Independent-Mail
- Boulder Daily Camera
- Corpus Christi Caller-Times
- Evansville Courier
- Henderson Gleaner
- Kitsap Sun
- Knoxville News Sentinel
- Memphis Commercial Appeal
- Naples Daily News
- Redding Record Searchlight
- Rocky Mountain News
- San Angelo Standard-Times
- Treasure Coast Newspapers
- Ventura County Star
- Wichita Falls Times Record News
- SHNS Partners
- Scripps Broadcast
- Scripps Networks
- Scripps Blogs
War and Peace in Afghanistan
Submitted by Arthur I. Cyr on Sat, 06/28/2008 - 07:34.
“War and Peace in Afghanistan”
by Arthur I. Cyr
The resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan has been prominent news. Nearly forty of the one hundred six allied soldiers killed in the country this year lost their lives this month. A very dramatic massive prison break on June 13 in Kandahar, a southern Afghanistan province previously considered secure, freed approximately one thousand people, among them an estimated four hundred hard-core insurgents. The prison gates were blown open by a suicide bomber in a large well coordinated operation.
On June 26, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates at a news conference expressed serious concern over deteriorating security in Afghanistan. On the same day, Group of Eight foreign ministers meeting in Japan made a strategic move of great significance but so far without the media attention Gates’ observation is receiving. The G-8, which includes the world’s most advanced industrial economies, has decided to devote massive financial resources to combating the narcotics traffic and poverty in Afghanistan, focused on areas where “narcotics trafficking and extremism are endemic”.
A new G-8 coordinating body will oversee approximately four billion dollars in aid, concentrated in tribal areas bordering Pakistan where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are particularly strong. Assistance will include police and military training as well as expanded anti-drug efforts. The thrust, however, is economic, not military.
The Kandahar prison break has been described as a surprise, but that should not be the case. Signs of deterioration of the allied position in the region have been evident literally for years. Since last summer, news reports have described markedly renewed insurgent activity and rapidly deteriorating security in southern Afghanistan.
Two years ago, journalist Sarah Chase provided a bleak evaluation of developments on a visit to the U.S. A daring adventurer, she runs an agricultural cooperative in southern Afghanistan and has written a book about the country. A BBC visitor to her home noted a Kalashnikov assault rifle, a response to death threats from local warlords. She consistently highlights general poverty and drug trafficking as principal ingredients in her pessimism.
In seeking effective policies, history as usual is instructive. In particular, useful lessons are provided by that durable duo of international relations, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. During the Nixon administration, Turkey was a principal source of world heroin production. President Nixon creatively used product licensing to encourage Turkish farmers to sell crops to pharmaceutical companies for legal medicinal purposes. Drug lords moved some production to other locations, including Afghanistan, but the mammoth established drug route from Turkey to Marseilles France, and then the U.S. – dramatized in the film “The French Connection” – was disrupted, and our important ally Turkey was strengthened. Why not apply this practical approach to Afghanistan?
Iran is committed to assisting Afghanistan, a reflection of Tehran’s hostility to drug trafficking. Afghan President Hamid Karzai emphasizes that Tehran connection. Why not try openly to coordinate G-8 and Iran assistance efforts, in so doing perhaps easing the nuclear tensions with the fundamentalist Islamic state? Currently, the nuclear standoff threatens very tenuous anti-drug cooperation.
One course absolutely to be avoided is simply introducing more troops and firepower in an effort to “pacify” Afghanistan. That will only further strengthen the insurgency. The Soviets learned that lesson in very hard terms during a decade of occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The British likewise had costly experiences in Afghanistan throughout the 19th century, including obliteration of one entire army. Eventually, London achieved reasonable cooperation with Afghan warlords, but only after a very long term effort that involved astute diplomacy and economic incentives along with military moves. Washington should try to emulate that combination of carrots, sticks – and patience.
Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’. He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu


Post new comment