Is Afghanistan Still Worth It?

IMGXYZ1362IMGZYXEuropean governments are finding it difficult to convince an increasingly skeptical public of the necessity of a sustained European presence in Afghanistan. This European inability to commit contrasts with U.S. ambitions for a new counter-insurgency approach,  which would necessitate a significant increase in combat troops and is likely to lead to more casualties.  Complicating matters even further are the questions surrounding the legitimacy of the Afghan government, the lack of a political strategy on the part of the international community, and the full force of the global financial crisis that is bearing down on the European taxpayer.  The combination of these factors could result in a public backlash that might potentially quash any renewed European commitment  in Afghanistan.

Carnegie Europe and The Centre hosted the first in a series of special events on Afghanistan and the broader crisis gripping South Asia.  A panel including Dr. Greg Austin, Vice President at the EastWest Institute, Thijs Berman, Member of the European Parliament and Chairman of the parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Afghanistan  and Fabrice Pothier, Director of Carnegie Europe, discussed whether Afghanistan is still worth the international community’s financial, political, and military commitment.  Nader Nadery, a commissioner at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, joined the debate by telephone and Paul Adamson, Chairman of The Centre, moderated. 

The Afghan Presidential Elections:

• Nadery argued that despite the controversy surrounding the recent presidential election, Afghans themselves are still convinced that the democratic path is the right one.  The non-violent settlement of the post-election dispute helped build confidence amongst the Afghan people in the democratic process. This was an important first step in creating a different political culture in Afghanistan. 
   
• Berman expressed disappointment in the role played by the international community in the Afghan electoral process.  With the exception of the EU observer mission, the international community essentially ignored massive fraud and corruption.  In sharp contrast with Nadery, Berman said that he believed Afghans are growing disenchanted with democracy. 
   
• Pothier suggested that in the build up to the elections, there was a genuine enthusiasm amongst Afghans about democracy.  This enthusiasm was undone by the electoral fraud.  The real winner of the elections was the Taliban.

International Strategy:

• Austin criticized the lack of a clear overarching U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.  In the United States, the State Department has not assumed a policymaking role with regard to Afghanistan, leaving important strategic decisions to the Pentagon. The Pentagon, however, does not control the political and economic resources it needs to address the situation on the ground, leaving General McChrystal unable to implement the economic, military, and political solutions he outlined in his assessment of the current situation in Afghanistan.
   
• Austin explained that the international community will have to develop a unified command structure, including an inter-ministerial taskforce for Afghanistan that work with the political authorities in Afghanistan. A successful EU and NATO strategy must be more inclusive towards the international Islamic community, and especially the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.   
   
• Berman emphasized that the solution in Afghanistan is not a military one; the international community should not maintain a large military force in Afghanistan, but have only a small number of specialized troops on the ground. 

Europe’s Role:

• Pothier argued that Europe does not have the will to further commit in Afghanistan, nor does it have enough courage to start calling for an exit. He warned that Europe is becoming increasingly irrelevant on both the military and civilian fronts. 
   
• Berman argued that the EU should adopt a development approach in Afghanistan, by engaging in bottom-up policies, investing strongly in governance, strengthening the Afghan parliament, training politicians, and encouraging the creation of an independent media. 

The Afghan Government:

• The international community has been too lenient in its treatment of the Afghan government, Nadery argued. Afghans wish to see their government held more strictly accountable for its actions and its inability to meet the benchmarks set out by the international community.
   
• Austin suggested that, while the international community might not like the Afghan president, it is still going to have to deal with the authorities in place and try to engineer a new political and administrative environment in the country. 

Both the European and U.S. publics are starting to believe that involvement in Afghanistan is increasingly not worth the cost, Pothier concluded.  He questioned, however, the importance of such public opinon. Economic security is more salient an issue with voters than the war in Afghanistan. Public opinion, he argued, has so far primarily been a convenient tool for European governments to avoid further involvement in Afghanistan.  This, he said, does not mean that there is no rationale for staying in Afghanistan, but that the international community must be selective about what it can achieve with its limited resources.