European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

An International Study Group for Afghanistan

by Joerg in Berlin
Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST

We need an International Afghanistan Study Group, modeled after the Iraq Study Group, but with representatives from Europe and Asia as well.

To save the NATO mission in Afghanistan, we have to conduct a thorough, frank and honest evaluation of all our political and military strategies in Central Asia. We have to debate fresh and controversial policy alternatives, which include negotiations with the Taliban, the replacement of the Karzai government, military incursions into Pakistan, the involvement of Iran and Russia as well as complete NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. Every option has to be put on the table and discussed on its merits.

So far the Afghanistan debate seems to be focused on how many troops European and American nations deploy to southern Afghanistan. The United States and Canada are angry that Germany and some other European countries do not share the burden of the heavy fighting, while the Europeans accuse the United States of counter-productive heavy-handedness or even trigger happiness etc. These concerns are important, but we have to discuss strategy as well. Not just the implementation of the current US led policy. Europeans will be more likely to send troops into harms way, if they are convinced that NATO has a promising strategy in Afghanistan.

While the United States (and Canada) are pushing strongly for more European troops, the Afghan government has different priorities: President Karzai has "repeatedly urged Western allies to provide more funds and resources to the Afghan security forces, rather than send more troops," writes Sayed Salahuddin for Reuters. He adds that a government-run daily newspaper accused Karzai of being "under the influence of foreign powers and troops led by NATO" and that "the U.S. must set a firm date for their departure from Afghanistan." Then again, Karzai has not been a great president for his country so far. Karzai also rejected Paddy Ashdown as the United Nations special envoy for Afghanistan, although he might have contributed to better coordination among various international agencies in Afghanistan.

Therefore, North American and European governments, parliaments and think tanks need to evaluate all current Afghanistan policies and suggest bold proposals that go beyond calls for more troops. We need an Afghanistan Study Group, that takes the Baker-Hamilton commission on Iraq as a model, but includes Europeans and even Iranians, Pakistani, and Russians.

My own blog Atlantic Review has covered the transatlantic controversies on Afghanistan.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Poll

Do we need an International Afghanistan Study Group?

.	Yes, an international study group could lead to new diplomatic initiative that peace to Afghanistan	14%
.	Sure, the study group might come up with great suggestions, but NOBODY will implement them	21%
.	Sure, the study group might come up with great suggestions, but the UNITED STATES will not implement them	28%
.	Sure, the study group might come up with great suggestions, but most EUROPEAN countries will not implement them	0%
.	Sure, but it will be too late, when the Americans and Europeans will finally decide to implement them	0%
.	No, these study groups are a waste of time, money and paper. They do not make good suggestions	0%
.	No study group is needed. The solution is clear: More troops for the war against the Taliban	0%
.	No study group is needed. The solution is clear: Immediate withdrawal of all NATO troops from Afghanistan	35%
.	I don't care about Afghanistan.	0%
.	None of the above. Read my comment instead.	0%

Votes: 14
Results	\|	Other Polls

An International Study Group for Afghanistan | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

This NATO adventure in Afghanistan is not popular among the population.
Yesterday, the Dutch Defence published the latest poll(PDF)

Ministerie van defensie - Nieuws		Ministry of Defence - News
Defensie peilt maandelijks de steun en het draagvlak voor de missie in Afghanistan onder de Nederlandse bevolking door middel van verschillende vragen en stellingen. De uitslagen van de meting in februari zijn inmiddels bekend.		Defence gauges monthly aid and support for the mission in Afghanistan under the Dutch population through various questions. The results of measurement in February are now known.
Het percentage van de Nederlandse bevolking dat aangeeft dat de missie zal bijdrage aan de wederopbouw (32%) en het percentage dat er vertrouwen in heeft dat de Nederlandse militairen zijn opgewassen tegen Talibanstrijders (35%), zijn lager dan in de voorafgaande maand (47% en 53%).		The percentage of the Dutch population indicating that the mission will contribute to the reconstruction (32%) and the percentage that are confident that the Dutch soldiers are up against Talibanfighters (35%) are lower than in the previous month (47 % and 53%).

The politicians decide what will happen.
But they have to be (re)elected now and then.

With public support that low no one European politician can afford to be hawkish on the matter.

OTOH, they do not have the courage to cut the whole military operation.

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM EST

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

Thanks for the latest Dutch poll. Very interesting.

With public support that low no one European politician can afford to be hawkish on the matter.
OTOH, they do not have the courage to cut the whole military operation.

That's their damn cowardice that I find soooo annoying.

If European politicians think that Afghanistan is not important to our security, then they should withdraw regardless of what the US think. The US is unhappy anyway.

OR:

If European politicians think the ISAF mission is vital, then they should support it full heartedly regardless of how unpopular it is. And with full support I do not mean to send troops to the US disposal, but to actually work out a decent strategy and convince other NATO states to support it. There is always more than just support or objection of US policy.

But the current policy should not be continued.
Perhaps an Afghanistan Study Group would help our politicians to make up their mind: Withdrawal or a change of strategy combined with more resources. One or the other rather than muddling throught to disasater.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

I totally agree on European governments' hypocrisy. However, I do not agree that it is unrelated to the US: methinks the motivation for this hypocritical policy is an alibi demonstration of fealthy to the US so as to not get into too much trouble with them.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (4.00 / 2)

@ Dodo
I don't know what "fealthy" means, but I am confidant enough to say that this alibi demonstration is not achieving what is supposed to: Europe is "in trouble" with the US.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:27:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 0)

Without the typo: fealty = Lehenstreue.

I wrote "not get into too much trouble with" the US.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 10:17:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 0)

Thanks, I got it.

I still think it is not working.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 08:18:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 1)

I think the option I would have included in the poll you provided that you did not is:

"Sure, the study group might come up with great suggestions, but each country will pick and choose based on their own interests, and perhaps less then 1 in 10 of the suggestions will actually affect policy"

However, the study group is probably still a good idea so long as NATO is not already doing this kind of assessment internally... how successful such a commission is will probably depend largely on its membership, and how much each government in Europe and the US invest into the group and take stock in their nationals.

Kyle Atwell

by Kyle Atwell (kyle.atwell [at] atlanticreview.org) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 01:49:28 PM EST

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 1)

Good point.

Perhaps one Study Group Recommendation shall be to eliminate all national caveats.

Why do NATO states have these national caveats anyway?
Isn't NATO supposed to operate under unity of command? And only the French our outside NATO's military structure?

National caveats and the NATO's principles of unity of command seem to contradict themselves, but I have probably forgotten everything I learned in NATO 101.

I guess, the mistake was made right at the beginning, when NATO decided that every major member country gets a providence in Afghanistan...

This was done on the Balkans as well, and it seemed to work, but isn't it all against the NATO principles?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 0)

@ Joerg:

"when NATO decided that every major member country gets a providence in Afghanistan"

What do you mean by this? You mean the mistake is saying that every major country gets some kind of say at the strategic level in Afghanistan?

Kyle Atwell

by Kyle Atwell (kyle.atwell [at] atlanticreview.org) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 03:02:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (none / 0)

I was referring to the NATO decision to divide Afghanistan into several sectors and then assign them to individual or a group of NATO countries.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 08:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An International Study Group for Afghanistan (4.00 / 5)

the study group is probably still a good idea so long as NATO is not already doing this kind of assessment internally

There are already many different study groups, but what I have in mind is a study group that looks beyond military issues (NATO's focus) and is truly international, i.e. including Iran for instance.

We need more than "just" a military strategy.

And: NATO can't do this alone. In autumn 2001, the Bush government thought it could achieve its mission with just the help of the Northern Alliance of Afghan tribes. Then it slowly realized that it can't do it and allowed NATO to play a bigger role. (In the beginning, NATO help was rejected.)
Now, we should realize IMHO, that NATO can't achieve success alone either. We need Iran for instance. Iran was pretty cooperative re Afghanistan so far, but the US is afraid of working together with Tehran.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Before we are to determine how to "save (none / 1)

the Nato mission in Afghanistan," wouldn't it be a good idea to make sure we all agree what this mission is and, assuming we can agree, determine whether it is worth in fact saving?

"C'est un scandale !"

by redstar on Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 at 07:58:52 PM EST

Re: Before we are to determine how to "save (none / 0)

"to make sure we all agree"

No, thanks. I don't like communism. ;-)

Seriously: Replace "NATO mission" with the "Western efforts in Afghanistan" and then ask you yourself if an international Afghanistan study group is needed to improve the current state of affairs in Afghanistan. See the poll.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 06:27:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Before we are to determine how to "save (none / 1)

Well make it "come up with a few possible definitions of what the mission might be" and then see if any of them are achievable....

But seriously, are there any examples in the past of a study group, international or otherwise, coming up with a solution that worked for an insurgency of this sort (other than "get the hell out of there"). If not, what reason is there for expecting that it would be any difference in Afghanistan?

by gk (g k quattro due due sette "at" gmail.com) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You must be joking! (none / 1)

Yet, 'another' 'study' to come up with what is known already? And how many life-years will it take? Which side will spin it and which side will ignore it? What tank-think will benefit greatly from it?

I´d agree to it as long as a total truce is reached in the meantime, so people can stay alive while the title-holders gab and praise themselves.

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. --Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 12:11:57 PM EST

It's the politics stupid (4.00 / 2)

As I stated in my own diary on this subject Our enemies have watches, but we have time;-

Yet Toynbee is correct to point out that Afghanistan needs help and the West would be both morally wrong and politically short-sighted to abandon it. And Hamilton is equally correct when he says that NATO is the politically wrong vehicle to control the mission because it is a military rather than a political entity and the problems being addressed are greater. But, for Afghanistan to have a chance of progress, that would imply a UN mission and that would require the USA to cede control. Something that I think we all know is never gonna happen; not now, nor even a year from now

War is politics by other means. But for a military solution to be an effective part of policy we need to understand the politics of what we're attempting and determine the best way to achieve it. Arguing about the size or command structure of the military is pointless until we know what we're supposed to be doing with it.

We need a political solution. that requires somebody with a brain to run the show and right now that seems in short supply.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 03:01:44 PM EST

Re: It's the politics stupid (none / 1)

requires somebody with a brain to run the show

Just one person?

Why not get a bunch of brainiacs from Europe, Asia and North America together to come up with a plan?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sun Feb 24th, 2008 at 08:16:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let the UN Lead (none / 0)

Here is a perfect opportunity for the UN to take the lead on this issue, opening the door for some creative thinking on a very thorny problem. As a side effect, it's a chance for the UN to take some restructured leadership, strengthening the body itself.

Skennah Kowa

by Crazy Horse on Tue Feb 26th, 2008 at 01:56:39 PM EST

An International Study Group for Afghanistan | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]