by Shahzad Masood Roomi
Finally, Afghan peace process has initiated after vigorous diplomatic efforts by Pakistan and China. First meeting between the representatives of Afghan government and Taliban held in hill town resort in Muree on Tuesday. According to the statement issued by Pakistani foreign office,
both sides have agreed to continue the talks after fasting month of Ramadan. But as the peace talks took start in Pakistan, voices advocating the continuation of military discourse have also begun to emerge.
Former US military commander in Afghanistan, David Petraeus has put forward a case of keeping the US forces on ground in Afghanistan on permanent bases just like Japan and Germany. His article which can be accessed
here proposes the idea of permanent US military bases in Afghanistan as the only viable option to ensure the safety of Afghanistan and world at large. He concluded his assessment in the following words;
"Yes, such an operation would have real American costs — perhaps $5 billion to $10 billion a year in U.S. military expenses, on top of $2 billion to $3 billion to help sustain Afghan forces at roughly current size, and undoubtedly some U.S. casualties. But compared with the investment to date, of well over 2,000 American lives and nearly $1 trillion in expense, and compared with the specter of another major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland devised or launched out of a South Asian terrorist sanctuary, such costs are bearable — and the right call for this nation."
A number of caveats challenge this assessment of former US military general and it would be prudent to analyze the fluid Afghan political landscape in order to asses if this approach would bring any stability in war torn country and the region as has been claimed by Gen Petraeus.
ANALYSIS:
1. War itself is just politics by other means. So, one way or other, it is always a political conflict which becomes a peg to a military conflict. But so far, the US strategic community is not ready to accept this reality. There is a clear strategic division on this among US policy and opinion makers.
2. Historically, Afghanistan has remained a complex political entity with its own internal ethnic and tribal strife. But ironically, this seemingly divided nation has demonstrated a remarkable cohesion against the external invaders. This unique paradoxical national behavior has stunned all the invaders.
3. Lately, there has been a realization within the US policymakers that a never ending war in Afghanistan is futile not only for US/NATO forces but US political strategy home and abroad. There is no longer any clear military objective for US/NATO forces in Afghanistan after ending their combat missions last year. After utter failure in the Middle East, the US foreign policy cannot afford the baggage of yet another strategic failure of a prolonged war. The US government wants to end the war so that a political victory can be declared.
Lately, it has also been admitted in principle by the US policymakers that destroying the Afghan Taliban completely may not be possible as Afghan Taliban are as much a political entity as the are a military one. This explains why US supporting the Pak/China led peace initiative.
4. Pakistan has learnt its lesson hard way and eventually has realized the fact that it is time Islamabad let Afghans settle their issues by themselves. Peace initiative by Islamabad and Beijing has just broken the ice but how things will proceed from this point on wards wholesomely depend on Taliban and Afghan government. Due to the policy option Pakistan chose after 9/11, the role of ISI has reduced considerably in Afghan Taliban's decision making. Now, ISI is acting a sole facilitator in this entire peace process. Good news is that for the first time in last 14 years, Afghan Taliban are in talking to Kabul government. Though right now both camps have adopted maximalist positions and reconciliation seems distinct possibility, yet both the camps have agreed to continue the negotiations after first round.
5. Americans, along with Chinese, are also part of this peace and reconciliation process as observer. This means this peace process is NOT moving forward without the US being on board. All the stakeholders are looking for a break through.
6. The demand of David Petraeus has no political backing after the US has withdrawn majority of the US forces in Afghanistan and Obama wants to bring all the US forces home before end of his run as President in 2016.
7. Permanent bases in Afghanistan would only deter the idea of peace initiative and putting the war to an end to declare a political victory. Logically any permanent military base would become a target of insurgents and Taliban perpetuating the conflict which would defeat the purpose of peace talks apart from destabilizing the region particularly Afghanistan itself.
8. Latest attacks on Kabul indicate that the US forces have actually failed to meet their primary goal of destroying Taliban during the last 14 years and that was the situation with 130,000 US troops on ground whereas now this number has gone down to 12,000. With this strength, the US forces would be stretched extremely thin in various parts of the country, particularly in North, where Taliban have gotten a strong military footprint. Attacks on Kabul would continue as well.
9. Permanents bases in Afghanistan may deny Taliban's return in Kabul but their presence would keep preventing any Afghan government to work. Ashraf Ghani knows this very well and this explains why he agreed to Pak/China led peace initiative to succeed. Taliban's onslaught can be deter through political discourse as well and after 14 years of war, this is what the US, Afghan government and ISI have realized.
10. If the objective of this proposal is to save the human and financial investment which the US has made in order to weaken the Al-Qaeda political discourse is a more promising discourse and it is high time and all the stakeholders give it a chance.
11. But, still there is no guarantee that these talks would bear any fruit as Taliban are divided on the issue of talks and there are number of actors who do not see a political settlement in Afghanistan a good omen for their objectives. Afghan government factions consisting on former Northern Alliance are also not happy with the prospect of a political share of Afghan Taliban which might be given to them if talks succeed. Private military contractors and the US MIC would also advocate continuation of military solution in Afghanistan.
Conclusion:
This is obvious that in every possible scenario involving permanent military bases of the US on Afghan soil would only contribute to perpetuate the conflict which, in the long run, would not serve anyone's interests. So opting for a negotiated solution of this prolonged duel remains only feasible discourse for all the stakeholders involved in this conflict.
