The latest pieces in America’s Afghanistan jigsaw puzzle have started falling into place. Indeed, parts of the picture had already begun to emerge earlier this year, with US President Barack Obama making good on his election campaign promise to increase the US troop presence from 30,000 to 50,000. He then replaced the traditionalist Gen. David McKiernan with the counter-insurgency expert Gen. Stanley McChrystal as effective military commander of all Afghan national and foreign forces in Afghanistan.
In addition, there have been the controversial missile strikes against suspected Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders. Although the strikes have been mainly focused on Pakistan, they have targeted insurgents operating in Afghanistan – a clear signal the United States is happy to escalate the war in the territory of key ally Pakistan.
Since the start of July, US and British-led forces of predominantly Afghan National Army soldiers have been sweeping into the Taliban heartlands of south and east Afghanistan in the largest ground assault by international forces in the last five years.
The ostensible aim is to ‘flush out’ the Taliban from its traditional strongholds. Another objective is to create sufficient security for reconstruction activities and voting in August’s presidential elections.
For the first time, the West’s operations in Afghanistan will use military power to create a window for soft power. Under Obama’s AfPak policy, there will be a greater emphasis on development and job creation in areas like Helmand, Kandahar, and Uruzgan to stave off Taliban recruitment.
Until this point, the US strategy has been to support local warlords and mount operations with little consideration of local political dynamics. But often, the sheer lack of opportunities or the banditry of favoured warlords has pushed people towards the Taliban. It appears these powerful grievances are finally being targeted.
Yet the challenges remain immense. One is reining in a ‘might is right’ political culture. There was a recent, bloody example of this when a 40-strong group of private Afghan military contractors on the US Special Forces payroll raided the police headquarters of Kandahar, killing the police chief and five officers in the process. Although the United States said the contractors acted alone, Afghan authorities held the superpower responsible for the deaths.
Another dire problem is the continued loss of civilian lives by local and foreign belligerents. About 14 civilians a week have been killed in the fighting so far this year, an alarmingly high frequency of deaths that has caused many Afghans to be understandably resentful towards ISAF forces.
The poor treatment of thousands of insurgents and civilians imprisoned by US and Afghan authorities has also stirred Afghan passions. One of these prisons, the massive Bagram Airbase, has been dubbed Obama’s Guantanamo Bay following allegations of abuse reminiscent of Guantanamo and Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.
US authorities have called for sweeping reform of detention and interrogation practices in Afghanistan, including separating the most ardent insurgents from other inmates and financing Afghan-run prisons that would teach prisoners vocational skills and more moderate interpretations of Islam.
All are positive steps. The question now is whether these new strategies can deliver greater peace and stability.
[Originally published at: http://www.the-diplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=15395]