Commentary
NATO: Go Big or Get Out
The choice in Afghanistan is stark, and
it's Canada's job to persuade the alliance to fish or cut bait, says
ROLAND PARIS
The Globe and Mail
October 25, 2006
NATO has
only two options in Afghanistan: make a major commitment of
additional resources to Afghan reconstruction, or plan a phased
withdrawal. As a major contributor of troops to this mission, Canada
should press its NATO allies to face up to this difficult decision.
Canada's interest in Afghanistan is to prevent the country from
becoming, once again, a major base for transnational terrorists who
pose a threat to Canadians or our allies. That requires building
governmental institutions that most Afghans view as legitimate and
that are capable of maintaining a reasonable level of security in
most parts of the country.
These are not impossible goals, and much has been achieved in the
past five years. Presidential and parliamentary elections have been
held, and some 1,000 schools, clinics and government buildings have
been built. In real terms, the non-drug economy has grown at an
impressive average of 15 per cent a year. Most Afghans do not want
the Taliban back in power. And unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not
verging on civil war.
But recent trends are discouraging. A strengthened insurgency has
made much of the country unsafe for civilian development personnel.
Local warlords and drug traffickers are reportedly collaborating
with the Taliban against the government. And ordinary Afghans are
showing signs of mounting disaffection with their own government's
inability to provide security and public services.
If these trends continue, the Afghan mission will fail. Defeat will
come slowly, not on the battlefield but in the minds of Afghans,
most of whom simply want security and opportunity for themselves and
their families. If the legitimately elected government of
Afghanistan and its foreign backers cannot provide such essentials,
Afghans will look elsewhere.
Having acknowledged that Afghanistan has reached a “tipping point,”
NATO now wants to accelerate reconstruction projects during the
expected winter lull in fighting, and is looking for 2,500
additional troops.
But much more is needed. This mission is the most under-resourced
international stabilization operation since the Second World War.
For example, there were 20.5 international peacekeepers in Kosovo
per 1,000 inhabitants, 19 in Bosnia, 10 in Sierra Leone and 3.5 in
Haiti. The ratio in Afghanistan is a paltry 1 to 1,000. From the
beginning, the operation has been hampered by a lack of
international forces to help the Kabul government establish its
presence throughout the country.
Afghanistan has also received less international aid per capita than
many other war-torn countries, including East Timor, Bosnia, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone and the Solomon Islands.
But appeals for more troops and aid will only work if contributing
governments are convinced that further sacrifices will make a
difference. NATO is having trouble finding more soldiers, in part
because its appeals are not accompanied by a new strategy or renewed
commitment to the operation — and the status quo is not inspiring
confidence.
A new strategy is needed to reverse the slow slide in Afghanistan
and to rally NATO members.
First, stop destroying opium poppy crops. Eradication is not
working. Worse, it is alienating poor farming communities and
fostering resentment against the government and foreign forces.
Instead, we should explore ways of regulating (and perhaps even
taxing) the opium trade, using a portion of production to reduce the
global shortage of opium-based pain medicines.
Second, make police training a priority. Police are largely in the
hands of local strongmen. Most are poorly equipped and organized,
function on the basis of personal loyalty to a commander, and are
accountable to no one.
Third, get serious about rooting out official corruption. President
Hamid Karzai recently sidestepped a new process for vetting
high-level police appointees by appointing a regional strongman,
with links to organized crime, as police chief of Kabul. In the
judiciary, too, unqualified people have been installed because they
are loyal to various factions, undermining public confidence in the
government.
Fourth, build an Afghan army that can stand by itself. Newly trained
units are performing well, but the current plan is to train only
70,000 soldiers. This will almost certainly prove inadequate. There
are already about 70,000 international and Afghan troops in the
country (40,000 international forces and 30,000 Afghans), yet
security remains a problem. Replacing NATO forces with Afghan
recruits will produce an army of similar size but considerably less
capacity. To stand on their own, Afghan forces will need to be much
larger.
Fifth, the flow of Taliban fighters from their safe havens in
Pakistan must be contained. Insurgencies with foreign bases have
rarely been defeated. In September, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor
proposed joint patrols of Canadian and Pakistani troops on both
sides of the border, a proposal that Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf summarily dismissed. NATO must speak with a single voice
and privately make it clear to Gen. Musharraf that Pakistan's
lucrative position as a close ally will be in jeopardy unless he
does more to address Pakistan-based threats to Afghanistan.
NATO will need to refocus its efforts on all five elements of this
strategy and make a major new commitment of diplomatic, military and
development resources if it is to be successful in Afghanistan. The
mission cannot be accomplished on the cheap.
If NATO chooses not to make this commitment, it should not wait
around for conditions to worsen. It should withdraw, because the
current course is a recipe for creeping defeat — and that would do
untold damage to the alliance.
This puts Canada in a difficult spot. Our troops are in the most
strategically important and dangerous part of Afghanistan, committed
until 2009. Yet, many NATO members are reluctant to contribute
further to the mission.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he wants to restore Canada's
position of leadership in world affairs. Now he has a chance to do
so. His difficult task is to convince his fellow NATO leaders that
the alliance needs to make a tough choice in Afghanistan: Go big, or
get out.
Roland Paris is associate professor of public and international
affairs at the University of Ottawa and author of At War's End:
Building Peace After Civil Conflict. He was a foreign policy
adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Privy Council
Office from 2003 to 2005.
Printer-friendly version