New Way Forward in Afghanistan
Afghan elections need credible candidates – Minister Jalali
By Rana Fawad
Posted
April 4, 2009
WASHINGTON: Without a credible alternative block of candidates in
Afghanistan, the voters will have hard time in believing elections were
fair.
This was remarked by former Interior Minister of Afghanistan Ali Jalali
during a discussion titled ‘A New Way Forward in Afghanistan’ held at
the Center for American Progress on Friday. Other panelists included Dr.
Frederick W. Kagan (Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute),
and Fred Kaplan ("War Stories" columnist, Slate Magazine).
Lawrence Korb (Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress) moderated
the proceedings.
The Center also released its report “Sustainable Security in
Afghanistan: Crafting an Effective and Responsible Strategy for the
Forgotten Front” on Afghanistan.
Analyzing the situation Minister Jalali told the audience that people of
Afghanistan have concerns whether the coming elections (on August 21)
will be credible or not. He warned that if the majority of people in the
South do not have access to voting, it can cause a credibility problem.
He also urged the election commission and those who are involved in
preparing and conducting the elections process to remove any perception
of manipulation.
He added that there are many candidates running in the election but
unless a credible alternative is established as part of the election, it
will be very difficult for the Afghans to believe in the credibility of
the process.
Minister Jalali who is also a distinguished professor at the National
Defense University pointed out that apart from the elections in
Afghanistan, new U.S. policy on Afghanistan, and surge in troops will be
important in determining the future of the country. He said if the
government could not rule effectively, the surge will have negative
impact.
“There is a good news for the first time in eight years,” the former
minister told the gathering and added that the new policy has a link
between the goal and strategy. “In the past seven years many things were
confused.” He emphasized that a stable government is a must to overcome
problems there.
Minister Jalali remarked that the tribal system in Afghanistan had
transformed over the years and the people need to be integrated
democratically, economically, and socially.
Agreeing on most of what Minister Jalali said, Dr. Frederick W. Kagan
added that the U.S. presence at this point in Afghanistan is primarily
not just to fight al Qaeda because there's little al Qaeda in
Afghanistan since we threw them out in 2001 and 2002.
He opined that the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is also critical in the
struggle against a number of other groups that threaten the American and
global interests in a very fundamental way. He explained that
Afghanistan is the playground of groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba, like
the TNSM group to which the Pakistani government just surrendered the
Swat river valley, and like the Baitullah Mehsud’s Tehrike Taliban
Pakistan which has jus threatened the White House. “None of them have
goals particularly in Afghanistan other than the pleasure of killing
Americans.”
Dr. Kagan warned that these groups together represent a threat to the
United States and to the region that has a billion and a half people and
several hundred nuclear weapons.
Commenting on the Af-Pak strategy, he cautioned that though the issues
are inextricably interconnected, we should care about each country
because of its own reasons. “We care about Afghanistan because of
Afghanistan. We care about Pakistan because of Pakistan and we care
about India because of India.”
He remarked that recognizing that all these things are interconnected
has to be separated from a strategy that would link them all together in
a way that subordinates one to the other.
Dr. Kagan said war in Afghanistan was winnable and told the audience
that comparatively situation was less dangerous than in Iraq. He
commented that there is no civil war based on ethnic divisions in
Afghanistan. “Fundamentally, it is a straight up insurgency.”
He termed the recent hyperbole about the impossibility of winning in
Afghanistan as exaggeration. “I think President Obama understands that
it is a winnable war and he is committed to win. I think his strategy is
sound.”
He favored the idea of funneling financial aid through the government
even if it is corrupt instead of giving it to individuals. Dr. Kagan
said it is essential to enhance the government’s credibility and give it
a chance so that it could build institutional capacity.
Disagreeing with Dr. Kagan on President Obama’s plan, Fred Kaplan said
in his view the administration is not into it as deeply as his fellow
panelist says. “I think the strategy that Obama articulated the other
day is still a rather tentative one” and added that the President didn't
add any additional combat troops to the 17,000 that he announced to
bolster support leading up to election to make the election fair
process.
Kaplan commented that going after insurgents along the border is not the
broad counterinsurgency. “That’s not protecting the population. That’s
not building up services.”
He sounded cautious on Obama’s talk about developing economic,
agricultural, and other areas and a dramatic increase in civilian effort
of preparing educators, engineers, lawyers, etc., in Afghanistan. Kaplan
questioned why those people should go there unless they are going to be
protected. He doubted the additional 21,000 troops are enough to do so
many tasks.
Analyzing the availability of resources, Kaplan commented that the
administration does not have sufficient number of troops to send to
Afghanistan. He added that build up in Afghanistan is proportionately
linked to draw down in Iraq.
He said undermining support for al Qaeda and Taliban is necessary but it
is also a staggeringly ambitious goal in the given circumstances. He
pointed out that this goal is not supported by the amount of resources
we need to put in, it is not supported by crucial players in the Obama
administration, and it may not be supported by the American public
because they are not paying attention to it. Kaplan also mentioned that
the cost of war in Afghanistan is much higher than it was in Iraq.
Talking about Pakistan’s role in the situation, he said the sanctuary
for terrorists in the tribal area cannot be eradicated unless Pakistan’s
army is persuaded that it does not need to man border with India. He
said it was extremely difficult and referred to Pakistani Ambassador
Husain Haqqani book in which he writes that one of the foundation points
of Pakistani state is the idea that India is the main threat – “the
Hindu-Muslim thing.”
Kaplan remarked that to make Pakistan realize that India is not the main
threat and that the real threat is from within is really a complicated
thing.
Replying to a question, Minister Jalali said the people of Afghanistan
don’t see the Taliban as an alternative. “They are reluctant to stand
against them on behalf of the government that cannot protect them and
deliver basic services to them.”
When asked why Pakistan’s offer to mine or fence the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border is rejected by the Afghan government and the
NATO forces, the panelists were unaware of any such offer made during
General Musharraf’s regime.
Rejecting the idea Minister Jalali responded that it will not solve the
problem. He said a strategic problem cannot be solved with a tactical
move and added that it is very difficult to mine 2,400 kilometers (1491
miles approx.) of a mountainous border. He remarked that the source of
the problem needs to be addressed.
Minister Jalali referred to the U.S.-Mexican border and questioned that
with all the technology and capacity you cannot seal that border.
Responding to the same question, Dr. Kagan remarked that the idea of
land mines along the border is also a humanitarian matter and added that
to him it strikes as ethically questionable and he would not be part of
any such thing.
When asked about recruiting local militias to fight the Taliban,
Minister Jalali responded that it was tried in 2006 but didn’t work and
as a result thousand of weapons and hundreds of vehicles are unaccounted
for. He said they take that money and see if the government is viable or
not, and there is no guarantee that the government will stay there. “So,
they are very pragmatic people because they grew up in wars.”
He added that unlike Iraq, in Afghanistan families have split loyalties
to cover all bases. “If one cousin is with the government, the other
cousin is with the Taliban.”
Minister Jalali emphasized the need to build indigenous capacity of
police and armed forces. He wished it was paid attention to in 2003
instead of 2009. He said now it will take time to reach there.
To a question about the air strikes inside Pakistan, Dr. Kagan and
Kaplan opposed them and said that they are counterproductive. Fred
Kaplan also remarked that the idea of buynig off the entire poppy crop
should be considered as well. “I don’t think you can just wipe out a
farmer’s crop and tell him that don’t worry we will help you grow wheat
next year.”
