Essay: NATO’s War in afghanistan and its impact on globalisation and security

Abstract

The War in Afghanistan has been subject to a lot of debates. This paper gives an insight of NATO’s role in this war and why it is important for globalisation and security on a global scale. Prominence is given to Obama’s new strategy in this region, a plan which might just turn the tides of an otherwise quite an unsuccessful war for the West. Modern wars are not won solely through the military. As the War in Afghanistan proves, the people’s hearts and minds must also be won.

Introduction

9/11 sent tremendous shockwaves round the world. It was the first direct attack on Western led globalisation and made the most powerful country on earth look vulnerable. The interesting question was how the US and its allies would respond. The US President of the time, George Bush, believed that it was possible to wage a war on terrorism. Therefore the whole issue was presented as a military problem which could be dealt with ‘through state-on-state actions[1]’.

This strategy initially seemed fruitful as the Taliban and Al Qaeda were defeated by NATO and its allies. But what the West did not foresee was the insurgency that would follow; an insurgency which is threatening to wipe out NATO and its democracy ambitions out of Afghanistan. By pursuing a military oriented National Security approach, Bush neglected the aspect of winning the hearts and minds of the common Afghan in this conflict.

A change in policy was definitely needed. None of NATO’s aims in Afghanistan had been achieved. Local resentment and scepticism for the West grew. An Afghan pointed out that NATO ‘cannot bring peace, not if they stay for 50 years[2]’. The Taliban insurgency, which has now become an insurrection, affects 40% of the country. This makes the common Afghans angry. Despite $32 billion in aid, NATO failed to provide the security the people crave for. The deployment of 100, 000 ISAF and USA troops proved to no avail[3]. Something had to be changed.

President Obama knows that there is no purely military solution for the problems in this country. Politics had to play its part and that is why he initiated a new strategy plan. Civilian casualties antagonized the Pushtuns who believe that vengeance is justice, hence, their terror tactics on the West. The US airstrikes, which kills innocents, was moderated giving the Afghans less reason to regard NATO soldiers as infidels.

The new general appointed by Obama, McChrystal believes: ‘Afghanistan is this tremendously complex, Mad Max, utterly devastated society that’s got to be repaired, and I don’t know if we can fix it. But we can’t ignore it. And I believe there are certain forces here, maybe just the will of the people, fatigue with war – there is a tremendous desire to sort it out[4]’.

A War of Globalisation?

The physical clashing of the two opposing forces in Afghanistan (material prosperity against traditional roots) has emerged as a result of globalisation. That’s why what is happening in Afghanistan cannot be dubbed as a traditional war of a state on state. The enemy of the West – which represents the secular, new world – is not a state; but pan-national organizations and movements[5].

These organizations used tools of globalisation to expand their influence and even accomplish large acts of Terror such as September 11th. Afghanistan’s lack of resources made it a fabulous safe haven for Al Qaeda, because while its neighbouring countries leapt forward in the world of globalisation, this country remained untouched and therefore culturally autonomous. NATO decided to strike at the heart of tradition when they invaded the country; but 9 years after Afghanistan remains an unresolved issue. The harsh reality is that the West cannot always be victorious and in this case there must be a deal struck directly with the Taliban. This means that the forces of tradition are still too strong to defeat completely[6].

After the fall of the USSR, Samuel Huntington predicted that the West’s next great conflict would be against the Muslim World. The cultural war Huntington predicted is reflected in this war where the West is trying to impose its democratic values on the authoritarian tradition represented mainly by the Taliban[7].

According to Donna Kiser, ‘globalisation is a new word for imperialistic colonization[8]’. NATO is in Afghanistan to spread capitalism and not democracy. Where is the value of democracy when elected war lords torture citizens outside Kabul? A Mujahedin from Kandahar accuses the West of telling ‘a lot of lies and make a lot of false promises… This was supposed to be a war to help poor people of Afghanistan. In fact this is a war where the rich get richer, the foreigners who are here included[9]’. The death of innocent people is what hurts the Afghans most: ‘We have a saying about you now: Your blood is blood; our blood is just water to you[10]’.

The forces of Islam can never really match with the West militarily. But its movements are still a big threat especially when they force themselves into the West. NATO must aim to make the forces of modernity stronger, hence winning hearts and minds by respecting civil society.

Effects on Global Security

The War in Afghanistan is supported by the majority of countries around the world. USA’s initial rapid, military success even generated cooperation from Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan (formerly an ally of the Taliban)[11]. The NATO mission in Afghanistan operates under a UN Mandate and at the request of the Afghan government; therefore there is no question of its legitimacy. It is a chance for the Afghans to rebuild after a generation of war. But why is the war so important for global security?

The West, and one can even say the rest of the world, has a security interest in preventing this Middle East region from slipping into conflict. A Taliban restoration in Afghanistan would mean instability in nuclear armed Pakistan. Apart from this, a defeat for the Western forces would ’embolden’ its opponents round the world leaving it vulnerable to more attacks. And a withdrawal would also mean a betrayal to the Afghan people in general; especially those who put their trust in the West and returned to their homeland to supposedly start a new life in 2001[12].

NATO must reduce corruption in Afghanistan, not only because it is an important factor to win the war, but also because it would enhance the West’s positive values. With 27% of the Afghan economy being illicit[13] and with accusations that elections are rigged, NATO can never hope to win this war and ensure security in this region. The West is so interested in ‘imposing’ its democratic values in Afghanistan on the assumption that democracies never fight and therefore are essential for security in general.

The quick rise of the Taliban, after their toppling in 2001, was because the common Afghans themselves were never won over. The Russian ambassador to Afghanistan believes that ISAF was repeating the same mistakes made by the USSR in the 1980s, which is, occupying key cities without increasing influence over rural areas[14]. It is useless sending thousands of troops when 40% of the aid sent to this country doesn’t reach the Afghans that really need it due to other costs. Economically the people of Afghanistan are very poor and NATO made it worse by killing civilians to win the war. Such strategy is negative and President Obama knows that if more civilians are killed by Western troops, the more the Afghan population would support the Taliban. That is why he introduced a new strategy.

Apart from promising to help Afghanistan develop economically, Obama ordered the deployment of 33, 000 more troops into Afghanistan last December[15]. The implications of such a decision are great especially when considering the fact that in the last long war initiated by the USA – that in Vietnam – ended up as a disaster. The American President had two choices: either COIN (which is a manpower-intensive counter insurgency) and winning over the Afghan population or just counter-terrorism (which would have meant killing as many Taliban as possible with little care to civil casualties). The choice of COIN automatically increased American and NATO commitment in the region[16]. However, Obama assured the Americans that the war wouldn’t be endless and promised withdrawal by July 2011[17].

President Obama also asked for more European help in the Afghan war, as he is disappointed by Europe’s lack of involvement in Afghanistan. In fact he remarked; “With respect to our NATO allies, I’ve been very clear that we do need more support from them.”[18] However, he was quite pleased with British support. Obama remarked with a scolding note that the Europeans “can’t have a situation where the United States is called upon to do the dirty work, or the United States and Britain are called upon to do the dirty work, and nobody else wants to engage in actual firefights with the Taliban.”[19]

NATO must not behave as an occupying army but ‘as a partner’ with the aim of building local forces – building bigger and better Afghan security forces to keep out insurgents is crucial for the West’s entire strategy. This was one of the main subjects discussed in an international conference which took place in London on 28th January. The possibility of reconciliation with the Taliban was also talked over and Karzai (the Afghan President) even promised to call a council of elders in the Middle-East. This may be worrisome for the U.S. because agreements with the Taliban may be seen as a weakness especially when it is trying hard to strike a hard blow on the insurgents[20]. Reconciliation is certainly important, but NATO must first regain the initiative to be able to negotiate from a position of strength.

Meanwhile NATO is implementing a new strategy called Mushtarak[21]. This is a new strategy where NATO’s missions are advertised from beforehand to encourage civilians to get out of harm’s way and therefore reduce considerably the death of innocents.

Conclusion

Never in World History have there been so many nations participating in one war theatre. The number of troops is enormous, even more than the troops stationed in Iraq while there was an insurgency going on in this country. This is what the War in Afghanistan has brought about.

Some, like Ullrich Fichtner, describe it as the ‘unwinnable war[22]’ considering the huge setbacks NATO has experienced lately. Others, including the U.S. President, believe that the war must be won and with the right strategy there is a big chance of succeeding. It is important for the West to be victorious, not only for its prestige, but also because this can be dubbed as the first war of globalisation where the security of the capitalist system endorsed by the Western countries is at stake. Failure in Afghanistan can lead to huge negative consequences on a system which has been so trusted and that led the West to prosper greatly in the last few decades.

References

• Bruce Jones et al, Power and Responsibility, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution, 2009.
• Fichtner Ullrich (2008), Why NATO Troops Can’t Deliver Peace in Afghanistan, available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-556304,00.html (accessed 29th March 2010).
• From The Economist (2009), From Insurgency to Insurrection, available: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TQNGVDDT (accessed 27th March 2010).
• From The Economist (2009), Obama’s faltering war, available: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652443 (accessed 24th November 2009).
• From The Economist (2009), The Beginning or the End?, available: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017298 (accessed 29th March 2010).
• From The Economist (2010), Patching things up, available: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15409496 (accessed 21st March 2010).
• From The Economist (2010), Get out of the way, available: http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15494666 (accessed 28th March 2010).
• From The Economist (2009), Obama’s War, available: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14644385 (accessed 24th November 2009).
• From OpenDemocracy (2009), Afghanistan: a new realism?, available: http://www.opendemocracr.net/print/47637 (accessed 29th March 2010).
• Huntington Samuel P. (1993), The Clash of Civilisations?, available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621 (accessed 28th February 2010).
• Kiser Donna (2007), Globalization and Afghanistan: Acceptance or Occupation?, available: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/281607/globalization_and_afghanistan_acceptance.html?cat=9 (accessed 20th March 2010).
• Mason Jeff, Obama says Europe must do more in Afghanistan, available: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2861811220080229 (accessed 20th March 2010)
• Patman Robert G. (2006), Globalization, The End of the Cold War, and the Doctrine of National Security, in Patman., ed., Globalization and Conflict, Routledge.
• Scanlan Oliver (2009), NATO allies join US Afghan Surge, available: http://www.opendemocracy.net/print/49327 (accessed 21st March 2010).
• Sunshine James (2009), Afghanistan: The First War of Globalization, available: http://www.emorywheel.com/detail-pf.php?n=27779 (accessed 29th March 2010).
• Rozoff Rick (2009), The Great Game: U.S., NATO War in Afghanistan, available: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=16422 (accessed 27th March 2010).

Footnotes

1. Robert G. Patman (2006), Globalization, The End of the Cold War, and the Doctrine of National Security, in Patman., ed., Globalization and Conflict, Routledge, p. 19
2. From The Economist (2009), From Insurgency to Insurrection, available: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TQNGVDDT (accessed 27th March 2010).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. James Sunshine (2009), Afghanistan: The First War of Globalization, available: http://www.emorywheel.com/detail-pf.php?n=27779 (accessed 29th March 2010).
6. From OpenDemocracy (2009), Afghanistan: a new realism?, available: http://www.opendemocracr.net/print/47637 (accessed 29th March 2010).
7. Samuel P. Huntington (1993), The Clash of Civilisations?, available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20045621 (accessed 28th February 2010).
8. Donna Kiser (2007), Globalization and Afghanistan: Acceptance or Occupation?, available: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/281607/globalization_and_afghanistan_acceptance.html?cat=9 (accessed 20th March 2010).
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Bruce Jones et al, Power and Responsibility, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution, 2009, p. 36
12. From The Economist (2009), Obama’s War, available: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14644385 (accessed 24th November 2009).
13. Jones, op.cit., p. 293
14. Oliver Scanlan (2009), NATO allies join US Afghan Surge, available: http://www.opendemocracy.net/print/49327 (accessed 21st March 2010).
15. Rick Rozoff (2009), The Great Game: U.S., NATO War in Afghanistan, available: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=16422 (accessed 27th March 2010).
16. From The Economist (2009), Obama’s faltering war, available: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14652443 (accessed 24th November 2009).
17. From The Economist (2009), The Beginning or the End?, available: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15017298 (accessed 29th March 2010).
18. Jeff Mason (2010), Obama says Europe must do more in Afghanistan, available: http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2861811220080229 (accessed 20th March 2010)
19. Ibid.
20. From The Economist (2010), Patching things up, available: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15409496 (accessed 21st March 2010).
21. From The Economist (2010), Get out of the way, available: http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15494666 (accessed 28th March 2010).
22. Ullrich Fichtner (2008), Why NATO Troops Can’t Deliver Peace in Afghanistan, available: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-556304,00.html (accessed 29th March 2010).