 |
World Leaders Head to Afghanistan |
 |
Major western leaders headed to Afghanistan this weekend to meet with Karzai, NATO commanders, and their own troops.
Rudd.
Australian PM Kevin Rudd has told Afghan President Hamid Karzai during a visit to Kabul he is committed to the “long haul” in Afghanistan. Mr Rudd also visited some of the 1,000 Australian troops in Uruzgan province. Mr Rudd, who has said he will pull out combat troops from Iraq, stressed he was committed to reconstruction and stability in Afghanistan.
Sarkozy’s visit was the first to Afghanistan by any French president, and he discussed the political and military situation before meeting some of the 1,300 French troops who are part of NATO’s military force in the country. France announced its decision a year ago to withdraw 200 elite Special Forces, raising questions about whether the pullout would precede a larger withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Sarkozy, who became president in May, told Karzai that France has a long-term political and military interest in Afghanistan, Karzai’s office said in a statement, apparently signaling that further French troops would not pull out anytime soon.
“We did not want to give the signal of a withdrawal, which would have been a detestable signal at a time when we see the ravages that terrorism can do to the world,” Sarkozy said on France-Info radio.
Mr Prodi held talks with the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, and the commander of Nato forces fighting Taleban militants, Gen Dan McNeill. He also travelled to the western city of Herat, where the bulk of the Italian contingent is based. Italy has more than 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan.
“The Afghans must receive help from the international community,” Mr Prodi told Italian news agency Ansa in Kabul upon his arrival.
Italy has lost 10 soldiers in Afghanistan, prompting a communist faction supporting Mr Prodi’s coalition government to call for the withdrawal of Italian troops.
What does all this mean?
Firstly, the BBC notes that
many Western governments have drawn a distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, where there is believed to be a more focused objective - preventing the Taleban returning to power.
Secondly, the US has been calling for its NATO allies to step up their commitments in Afghanistan. With so many world leaders ousted by their electorates partially as a consequence of their support for Bush’s War on Terror, leaders like Prodi are performing a careful balancing act.
Thirdly, no one wants to see the Taliban back in control of Afghanistan. If nothing else, it would represent a major blow to US/NATO prestige.
The situation in Iraq, where the American presence largely impedes political progress, is in certain ways clearer than the situation in Afghanistan. Even I believe that the NATO mission in Afghanistan could succeed at real nation-building…provided that America and its allies are able, at the very least, to effectively coordinate their strategies. But approaches are so disparate that Afghanistan still seems, for the most part, to be an American and British war. Our reluctant allies’ roles are poorly defined and marginal.
If it weren’t for the “battle of ideologies” at work in Afghanistan, the situation would look a great deal like the chaos unfolding in the Horn of Africa. In that case I would simply advocate that the US leave all participants alone. But in Afghanistan, many feel, the stakes are higher.
This winter may offer a potential turning point in the military campaign. But already the need for a deep rethinking of the strategy has become clear. I seem to always harp on the same themes: reducing civilian deaths, coordinating more effectively with the UN, negotiating, and developing an economic rather than military solution to the poppy problem. Tired themes, perhaps. But if we don’t do the basics, how can we ever move forward?
I wonder how much simple coordination is preventing progress in Afghanistan. I’ve heard reports of British units telling Americans to leave them alone because American presence and tactics makes things worse. And of course, as you point out, Afghanistan is a patchwork of responsibility put on top of a patchwork country.
With a unified message of nation building, we might indeed be able to get something done. But it doesn’t seem like NATO or the US really has the appetite for that kind of operation these days.