Afghanistan: A Constructive Way Forward to the Crisis
The war in Afghanistan has dragged on for almost eight years with no end in sight as to the best possible approaches to a successful containment of the crisis. Several theories and hypothesis have been formulated and put before the appropriate policy and decision makers, but nonetheless, the war continues to take an eventual twist of turns around varying trajectories. Many have finally contended that the situation seems to be a historical repetition just as seen happened in the Vietnamese war. Whether true or false, the war has indeed become a delicate policy theme needing proper pondering in reaching a prescriptive venture towards the adoption of an approach that will effectively contain the crisis.
How does one therefore approach the crisis, and what are the appropriate modus operandi required to put an end to such deadly turn of events that is thwarting modern civilization to an apex of economic cleavages and wanton human destruction? These are the good old questions policy makers and decision makers are left to ponder.
In light of these impending conundrums of modern times, it is first important to take a quick look at the background of the crisis from a historical context before taking a look at the operational approaches and the prescriptive policy measures required to tackle the onslaught.
Historically it is important to understand that Afghanistan was trapped in an ideological warfare well before the modern war of the region. The battle between communism and liberal democracy propelled the positioning of an Islamic regime that was appealing to liberal democracy at a time when communism was determined to be deeply rooted across the region. This led to a war that dragged communist Soviet Union to the brink of demise, dogging Russian military myth to an unconditional state of defeat after their shameful withdrawal from the mountainous and cave trodden territories of Afghanistan – a dogma that still hunts Russian global military influence.
Until today, a scholarly debate on the defeat of the Soviets is mostly attributed to the support of the Islamic government (The Taliban) by the forces of Western Liberal Democratic actors namely: USA; Britain; France; Germany, and other actors within the horizons of the Liberal Democratic forces. This is no political gimmicks or machinations but a historical reality in the contours of global transformations; the naked hypothesis behind the Taliban’s ascension to power in Afghanistan.
Nonetheless Liberal Democratic Forces continued to provide daunting support for the Taliban without considerations of precautionary measures in the case of any triggering of backlashes as a result of what Samuel Huntington once duped as the clash of civilizations. It could be noted that when the distinguished Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington widely published his book titled The Clash of Civilizations, many scholars quickly denounced his scholarly analysis as lacking a basis , thus out of touch with the realities of the changing world.
Many others came up with several hypothesis and theories countering the distinguished scholar’s findings, thus contributing to a shift in policy formulations that could have thwarted our modern day predicament. The late Professor Huntington was not only track, but his findings that was carefully and brilliantly crafted in his Clash of civilization has indeed become a historical prophesy that will continue to shape generations. It was indeed a clash of civilization that brought us modern day ideological tensions. Thanks to the moderate forces of all civilizations for shedding light on the real contradictions.
A meaningful deciphering of Dr Huntington’s hypothesis and analysis could have triggered a rightful policy adoption in containing Taliban resentment against Liberal Democratic ideology. It was indeed a miss opportunity for an ideological compromise through positive and constructive engagements along socio-economic and socio-political developmental fronts. Lapses in Intelligence further polarized such meaningful policy actions that could have ushered in a paradigm of engagement and containment. This has indeed laid the ground for a deep and firmly rooted fundamentalist ideology across the parables of Taliban Administration.
A de-legitimization and denouncement of the Taliban administration after the September 11th, 2001 attacks in the US was therefore no historical accident. The US led multinational military operations that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan was an evidence base multilateral action that stemmed from policy failures as a result of a flouted intelligence axiom.
In view of lessons from the Soviet experience, and policy failures that continues to threaten the stability of the region, it is imperative to brilliantly evaluate strategy towards the war in Afghanistan using uncompromising parallels of strengthening national and international security. Dragging on four almost 8-9 years with no end in sight, pursuing the war using a combination of engagement and containment- winning hearts and minds through socio-economic development programs; continuing to provide support and training for Afghani troops and the use of counter – insurgency tactics are the rightful policy moves that should largely be supported than a deployment of additional troops that has the potential of further escalations.
President Obama’s decision to review a decision on sending an additional 40,000 US troops to Afghanistan therefore comes very timely, especially in the midst of controversy looming over Afghanistan in the aftermath of the last Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Supporting the troops already on the ground and providing Afghani forces with the necessary intelligence and back up support in all their respective operations are the rightful operational policy measures required at such crucial times. Just as the Pakistani forces are taking a lead in their operations in the Province of Waziristan, so must the Afghani Army supported by Coalition Forces. This is just a food for thought.
