Kenneth Roy Eck’s literary luvvies Jim Swire An…

27.03.12
No. 531

Listening
to the
other side

R D Kernohan discovers common ground in unexpected places

Click here

Get SR free in
your inbox three
times a week
Click here

Friends of the Scottish Review

Click here

The Store

The new space for articles you may
have missed

The history of
our post-war progress
is not all it seems
Click here

Jill Stephenson

The Cafe

Unlike many publications SR doesn’t have an online comment facility – we prefer a more considered approach. The Cafe is our readers’ forum. If you would like to contribute to it, please email islay@scottishreview.net

Today’s banner

North Berwick flowers
Photograph by
Islay McLeod

Afghanistan: the

danger of a

new insurgency

Alan Fisher

Famously, after spending billions to help the Taliban beat the Russians, America decided it was ‘game over’ in Afghanistan and they no longer needed to pour money into the country.

     Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who had led the drive to fund Russia’s enemies thought the Soviet withdrawal presented a golden opportunity. But his idea of funding education in a largely illiterate nation gained no support. It was too expensive.
     The Russians, having lost huge sums of money and large numbers of soldiers fighting an unwinnable war, got out of Afghanistan in a hurry, leaving behind a hugely under resourced government. The country collapsed into another bloody civil war. The Taliban triumphed with help from foreign fighters and soon became home to Al Qaeda.
     Now, 10 years in, the US is convinced that the longest war in its history has damaged the Taliban and virtually routed Al Qaeda. The military commander there, General John Allen, told Congress as much when he faced the joint armed services committee in Washington: ‘We remain on track to ensure that Afghanistan will no longer be a safe haven for Al Qaeda and will no longer be terrorised by the Taliban’. The idea is that security operations will soon be handed over to Afghan national security forces, clearing the way for combat troops from the US and its international allies to leave by the end of 2014.
     General Allen has had a rocky eight months in charge. He’s seen deadly nationwide protests after US servicemen burnt Qurans and other holy books at their Bagram airbase and the shooting dead of 16 civilians, allegedly by a deranged staff sergeant who is likely to face trial. But despite all the problems, he is still well regarded in government circles in Kabul and is considered thoughtful, honest and respectful of Afghan and Muslim traditions. He believes that the future must see Afghan forces taking the lead in security operations: ‘In the long run, our goals can only be achieved and then secured by Afghan forces. Transition, then, is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the way out’. He says he’s impressed by the recruits to the new Afghan national security force.
     Initially there will be 352,000 of them spread around the country. It’s steady work in a land with few opportunities. But a force that size is expensive and the cost is being met by the US and its allies. So after the initial surge which will cost around $6 billion a year, the plan is to take around 150,000 off the payroll, saving two billion.
The allies obviously believe that, by then, there will be more than enough to provide protection and security to a government which suddenly has to go it alone without outside help.
     If the reduction in numbers isn’t handled properly, there will be thousands of highly trained but deeply disgruntled people out of a job, something the Taliban has been able to exploit in the past. Unless there is some form of political reconciliation, the danger is that a new insurgency may not be far behind. The US has already witnessed how cutting back can save money. It may help with the bills in the short-term, but the long-term costs could be far greater.

Alan Fisher is an Al Jazeera correspondent