Afghanistan: Some in Kabul Say What's Needed is a Political & Economic Surge, Not Necessarily More Foreign Troops

The US plan to carry out a troop surge in Afghanistan is proving a deeply divisive issue inside the country. While most Afghans are supportive of any move that could end the Taliban insurgency, many already view the presence of foreign troops as a mixed blessing. Some experts suggest that a winning strategy must include drastic revisions in the way foreign forces operate in Afghanistan, along with an intensification of efforts to improve political and economic conditions.

Underscoring existing misgivings is the fact that at about the same time US President Barack Obama confirmed that an additional 17,000 American soldiers would be heading to Afghanistan, the United Nations announced that civilian deaths in 2008 had risen 40 percent over the previous year's toll. Of 2,118 civilians known to have been killed amid combat operations in 2008, the UN says, 39 percent died due to the actions of Afghan government and coalition forces.

Civilian casualties have long stoked public anger. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has regularly ratcheted up public angst, repeatedly calling for an end to the civilian deaths. On February 4, for example, he said his government and the United States had a difference of opinion over the use of air strikes and described the dispute as a cause of "tensions in our ties," adding the "tension has become severe."

Surprisingly, on February 17, Karzai welcomed Obama's proposed "surge" and described a new agreement with the American forces to improve coordination and minimize civilian causalities. "The tension the Afghan government had with the US government is now over," Karzai said February 18. "From now on, no foreign troop operations will be uncoordinated with Afghan forces."

Stemming growing public disenchantment -- now at its highest level since the Taliban's ouster in 2001 -- will depend more on the Afghan government's ability to contain corruption and deliver basic services than on more fighting, most observers believe.

Aziz Hakimi, a political analyst and the Country Director for Future Generations, a non-governmental organization, is unenthused by the coming surge. "More troops will mean more fighting, more bloodshed. The conflict will be prolonged," he said. Hakimi feels more troops cannot win this war. "It is . . . too late to get the upper hand militarily. What we need is a political surge, not a military surge," he said, referring to his desire for more development aid and accountability in government.

Journalist Najiba Ayubi, managing director of Radio Killid in Kabul, agrees. Noting pros and cons to the US presence, she says Afghanistan has gained a lot in terms of assistance, but adds international troops are operating in an alien culture that they have failed to grasp. At this point, she says, rather than increasing their presence, the international military must accept "a date for withdrawal."

However, another close observer of Afghan politics, Haroun Mir, founder of the Kabul-based Centre for Research and Policy Studies, is eager for more foreign troops. He laments the deteriorating security situation and says the country needs help, quickly, to prevent the Taliban's return to Kabul.

Of late, the UN has adopted a firmer stance on civilian casualties. At a December press conference, Kai Eide, the UN Secretary General's new Special Representative to Afghanistan, raised the bar. He called for greater troop restraint and a revision of the bilateral agreement for their deployment, asking for changes in the procedures of house searches, arbitrary detentions and use of air power. "Any expanded military presence has to be accompanied by that change in behavior," he demanded.

Rights watchdogs also see a change in rules of engagement as critical. Human Rights Watch (HRW) is calling for a review of the weapons used in combat. Rachel Reid, the Country Representative of HRW in Afghanistan, told EurasiaNet that, "an increase in troops will lead to a surge in violence if the troops are not used differently." There will still be "too much emphasis on protecting the lives of international troops and not enough emphasis on protecting the lives of Afghans," she said.

"Are the costs of civilian casualties too high to justify the military gains? Can they defeat the insurgency while losing so much public support through civilian casualty incidents and unjust detention policies?" she asked.

International observers have repeatedly warned that coalition troops keep too far from their Afghan hosts. Operating in an atmosphere of growing public disenchantment, arriving foreign troops are likely to minimize rather than expand contact with the local population. Foot patrols, even in the capital, which were earlier meant to reassure the public, take place now with the local population kept at a distance as soldiers march through in heavy armor.

The lack of contact will further exacerbate the continuing failures in intelligence gathering. Heavily reliant on local strongmen or 'leaders' to provide intelligence, the troops have at times found themselves used as a weapon in an ongoing feud between tribes or large families. The frequency of their rotation gives little chance to develop local intelligence, with the UN's Eide bemoaning the detention of people "who happen to be amongst the UN mission's closest contacts in the community."

So far, it is unclear what the new agreement between Kabul and Washington will mean for rules of engagement. But armed with inadequate intelligence, hemmed in by growing disenchantment and faced with the growing fighting capacity of anti-government elements, international troops may well find their numbers increased to the detriment of their mission.