Xtra News Community 2
March 30, 2024, 03:19:32 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

AFGHANISTAN

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: AFGHANISTAN  (Read 11783 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kiwithrottlejockey
Guest
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2009, 11:22:53 pm »


Noble goals but are they enough?

By NAJIBULLAH LAFRAIE - The Dominion Post | 8:52AM - Tuesday, 25 August 2009

MEETING A NEED: Kiwi troops have made a difference in Bamyan province, including helping with a roading project. Kiwi Group Captain Greg Elliott is picture at the opening. — NZ Defence Force.

MEETING A NEED: Kiwi troops have made a difference in
Bamyan province, including helping with a roading project.
Kiwi Group Captain Greg Elliott is picture at the opening.
— NZ Defence Force.


Is New Zealand ready to fight in Afghanistan for 30 to 40 years?

That may sound an outlandish question, but the Government has opened the way for such a possibility by its decision to send the SAS troops to Afghanistan and withdraw the Kiwi PRT, or Provincial Reconstruction Team, from Bamyan.

Prime Minister John Key's refusal to rush in response to the United States' request for redeployment of SAS to Afghanistan was commendable.

He also wisely rejected the idea of Kiwi troops participating in "operational mentor and liaison teams", training the Afghan soldiers and joining them as mentors in their war against the Taleban.

It is difficult, however, to see any rationale for the decision other than the pressure from the US.

Mr Key has noted that this decision follows those by the previous Labour government to deploy the SAS to Afghanistan on three separate occasions.

Firstly, although those decisions were supported by the opposition National Party at the time, they were criticised by others, such as the Green Party. So the fact that Labour had decided to deploy the SAS to Afghanistan does not necessarily make it a right decision.

Secondly, the situation in Afghanistan has changed drastically since 2005, the last deployment under the previous government.

And thirdly, to Labour's credit, despite those deployments, their real commitment was to the Bamyan PRT, which has been doing a very good job and has been cited by some scholars as a model for other countries' PRTs to follow.

Mr Key also tries to justify the decision by referring to New Zealand's "direct and vital interest" in eradicating terrorism and promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan.

These are certainly noble goals and the Government's keenness to be part of the international efforts for achieving them is understandable and laudable.

However, the important questions are: Is the war in Afghanistan really helping to eradicate terrorism or is it further fanning its flames? and: Can New Zealand better promote peace and stability in Afghanistan by deploying the SAS or by strengthening its PRT?

As for the first question, there is no evidence that the Taleban were involved in al Qaeda's terrorist activities before September 11. After the removal of the Taleban from power, al Qaeda dispersed from Afghanistan, not only to the tribal areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan but to other parts of Pakistan and far beyond.

Some foreign volunteers may be fighting in the Taleban's ranks today, but their number is very small, and the various groups labelled as Taleban seem to be operating independently of al Qaeda.

The fact that the US advocates talks with the Taleban is due to the advice they received from Afghanistan experts to distinguish between the Taleban and al Qaeda and not to consider them one and the same.

Afghanistan Taleban see their "terrorist" activities as a war of liberation against the occupying infidel armies and their domestic stooges.

Scholarly research, such as that by American political scientist Robert Pape, finds foreign occupation as a common denominator in all suicide terrorist attacks — be it religious or secular. It will not be difficult to argue that the SAS' involvement in the war against the Taleban will contribute to the deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan, rather than eradicating terrorism and al Qaeda.

It is noted by some knowledgeable observers that al Qaeda is now more an ideology than an organisation. Do we really think we can eradicate an ideology with guns and bombs?

As for promoting peace and stability, it is clear that there is no hope that the SAS will be able to achieve that. Even if there was a military solution to the Afghanistan problem, the number of troops needed to bring about peace and stability would be about 660,000, according to some experts on guerrilla warfare.

There is no doubt about the professionalism and high skills of our SAS troops, but they would be only a drop in a big and mostly empty bucket. They may eliminate some Taleban — and suffer some casualties themselves — but would that really contribute to peace and stability?

What is different about the Kiwi PRT, making it capable of promoting peace and stability, is that it is based in a specific locality. It may not make much difference to the overall picture, but it has made a difference to the Bamyan community.

When I met the governor of Bamyan province, Habiba Sorabi, in Auckland in February 2008, she was full of praise for the Kiwis in her province.

The decision by the Cabinet to increase the civilian aid to Bamyan is welcomed and will make a positive impact. Associating that with the withdrawal of the PRT is puzzling, however.

If this "exit strategy" is based on the hope that Afghanistan will not need foreign troops in five years, it is mere wishful thinking.

Apparently the Cabinet is not aware of the recent comments by Sir David Richards, the British general who has served as Nato commander in Afghanistan and has been appointed as chief of general staff of the British Army.

In an interview with The Times he predicted that bringing peace and stability to Afghanistan might take as long as 30 to 40 years.

This brings us to the question at the start of this piece. When New Zealand is unable to counter the pressure to send SAS troops to Afghanistan while 140 Kiwi soldiers are already there, would it be able to refuse such a request when there are no Kiwi troops?

If the answer is no, and certainly the Government's recent decision lends support to such an answer; then are we ready to fight in Afghanistan for another 30 to 40 years?

Najibullah Lafraie is a lecturer in politics at Otago University. He was minister of state for foreign affairs in Afghanistan after the downfall of the communist regime in 1992 and served in that position until the Taleban captured Kabul in September 1996.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/2783841/Noble-goals-but-are-they-enough
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.032 seconds with 16 queries.