Editor in Chief: Moh. Reza Huwaida Thursday, March 28th, 2024

Military Withdrawal is not a Sign of Failure

|

Military Withdrawal is  not a Sign of Failure

According to reports, around ten thousand US troops are about to leave the country within upcoming days. It is part of the security transition process which started earlier this year. President Obama previously announced that around 33 thousand US combatant troops would be withdrawn within months. Reportedly, the remaining 23 thousand will also leave the country on the summer of 2012.

The important thing in this juncture is withdrawal's effects on the security situation in the country. All military and political officials have ensured Afghan people that security situation would not reverse and deteriorate. Defense Ministry officials have confidently announced that US military withdrawal would not affect the situation because Afghan security forces have attained the capacity to accept the security responsibilities. NATO officials also maintain similar notion, saying that insurgency has been weakened and are able to carry out detrimental attacks. Casualties among Afghan and foreign forces have decreased visibly during 2011.

Meanwhile, security and political analysts maintain that security forces are not ready to accept security responsibilities and are worried about the consequences of withdrawal.

Moreover there is no agreement about the reasons behind the security transition process. Two opposite reasons are given for the US and NATO military withdrawal. Either of them seems extreme-like notions. On one hand, it is said that US and NATO military withdrawal is just a desperate struggle for face-saving disengagement and leaving Afghanistan in the hands of chaotic forces. On the other hand, it is said that what they wanted has been achieved and, hereafter, this is Afghan people who have to decide about their destiny.

It is obvious that Afghans are somehow xenophobic and always stand against foreigners' open and obvious interference to issues of their country. If we ever find in the history—modern history since two to three centuries back—we find that Afghans were acting like a nation and were united was absolutely when they were in fight with some country.

But right after victory, the same destructive and chaotic forces revived and pushed the country to final stages of miseries and wretchedness. Will the same scenarios be repeated again? Does it mean that NATO and U.S. troops are tired of being murdered by Taliban-led militants who wish to die rather to live?

Before dealing with these questions, I want to tell you that the present Afghanistan is quite different technically, if not inherently, with previous ones. The international community is not in war with Afghans, for the God's sake! They are fighting with insurgency or rebellions who are supporting the global terror network.

The ongoing war is also not against a particular ethnic and lingual force in Afghanistan. What has been the source of challenges in the history for establishment of a sovereign power were ethnic, religious and lingual divisions.

Supporting one and weakening the others is an old traditional political game played by some countries in Afghanistan. What such a measure would end to is destruction and violence. Because the very basis of such policies is based on complete elimination of the oppositions, which in modern times have not been realized and also brought no solutions except mere weakening of both to the edge of absolute collapse.

I do not reject that the ethnic and lingual combinations of the country are still the main sources of controversies within the government and clashes beyond the officials' circles. What I am trying to tell is that the current policies of US and NATO are not based on the policy of divide and rule.

The Kabul government is combination of all ethnic groups and comparatively the power is also justly divided among them. However, the government suffers badly, but it has become relatively the symptom of a national government.

Thus, US is not ruling Afghanistan that somebody claims to leave it. She is indeed helping it to base a stronger foundation for a national government in order to lessen the revival of past repetitive chaotic forces to rule again.

Thus, Afghans are not actually willing that international community leave it as soon as there is no insurance for future stability. Private independent media which have been incrementally increased during post-Taliban era and which are deemed as voice of people, along with officials agree on long-term partnership with the U.S. Thus, what we know from the terms, Afghans have no problem with presence of foreign forces in order to protect them. And it is baseless to voice out that Afghans are inherently desiring and demanding that currently involved forces to leave the country.

Secondly, maybe Kabul foreign allies are not willing to stay anymore, whatever is the reason behind. It may be due to huge sacrifices they made and tired of fighting with militants or due to facing mounting domestic pressures in their own countries.

But, meanwhile, I do not like to call the military withdrawal as sign of military failure. Remarkable things have been achieved and there is no need of further military sacrifices for NATO member nations and US. Perhaps their further military involvement may prove counterproductive as it would inject similar feelings as occurred during Soviet invasion, which, of course, strengthen the front of insurgency.

Thus, gradual military withdrawal is not that bad. What the international should not do is forgetting Afghanistan as they did right after Soviet withdrawal. They have to keep pressurizing countries who are playing games that the result is destructive for Kabul as well as for the rest of the world and instantly alarm Afghan officials about aversion from general democratic guidelines.

In addition, strategic and diplomatic support should never be marginalized. Since 2001, each militarily involved country has been spending millions of dollars in the country. If all just today decide to leave the country to its previous ethnic and lingual rivalries, all expenses would go into wastage or into dust box of history, the thing which is not favorable for anyone except militants.

The wise decision is to keep financial, strategic and diplomatic support of Kabul government in order to ensure that it will be changed again to a save haven for global terror networks, the thing they already announced a resolute commitment. With application of policy, it is extremely unlikely that the country will go on the same path as it did after soviet military withdrawal.

Jawad Rahmani is the permanent writer of the Daily Outlook Afghanistan. He can be reached at jawad_rahmani2001@yahoo.com

Go Top