(MintPress) – Two thousand American troops have been killed in the 11-year occupation of Afghanistan, a military incursion that has become the longest running conflict in U.S. history. While the goals of the mission were clear, namely to rout the Taliban, al-Qaida and affiliated militants posing a threat to U.S. national security, the reasons for continued U.S. presence have become obfuscated as public opposition increases.
Approaching the 11 year anniversary, Afghanistan has a corrupt central government without the effectual power to maintain control of the state after the NATO pullout in 2014. The security failures and the lack of any strong centralized government has lengthened the occupation, forcing leaders to protect aid dollars and previous pledges by prolonging a war that has become increasingly unpopular in the U.S., Canada and European countries.
The goals of Operation Enduring Freedom
The immediate goal — eliminating safe havens for al-Qaida — has been partially successful. Major advances against the international terrorist organization were capped by the elimination of Osama bin Laden, the most wanted al-Qaida leader, at his compound in Pakistan last year.
However, the Taliban and other insurgent groups, like the al-Haqqani network, continue to pose a threat to the remaining troops in the Central Asian country.
“I will not keep Americans in harm’s way a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security. But we must finish the job we started in Afghanistan and end this war responsibly,” said President Obama in a speech from a U.S. military base in Afghanistan earlier this year.
While the U.S. has shown a willingness to transfer responsibilities, like maintenance of Afghan prisons, for example, many authors and political commentators believe that the failure to facilitate the creation of a transparent, responsible government in Kabul has been one of the major failures of the U.S mission.
While Mitt Romney praised the president for eliminating Osama bin Laden in a raid last year, the Republican presidential nominee believes that the troop surge and subsequent pullout plan were not in the best interest of Afghan national security. Romney wrote on his official campaign website:
“After a protracted deliberation process, President Obama in December 2009 announced he would support a ‘surge’ that would entail introducing an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. But in the very same speech announcing the surge, he put forward a timetable for withdrawal. The mixed message left our Afghan allies in doubt about our resolve and encouraged the Taliban to believe that they could wait us out.”
Mitt Romney, while not openly opposing the 2014 pullout plan states on his campaign website, “Withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan under a Romney administration will be based on conditions on the ground as assessed by our military commanders.”
The tentative 2014 pullout plan Romney speaks of has led many Americans to question why U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan and what NATO forces have accomplished during the course of the war.
Failures of the mission
Entrenched poverty and the lack of economic development have been cited as contributory causes of terrorism and civilian discontent. Since 1978, the country has battled Soviet occupation, Taliban rule and later, the U.S.-led NATO occupation of the country, leaving much of the infrastructure destroyed.
These wars have created more than 3 million refugees, according to U.N. figures. While more than 1 million refugees have been repatriated, there remains few opportunities for Afghans to return to. One of the main obstacles to further economic development is persistent electricity shortages across much of the country.
According to an NPR report earlier this summer, Afghanistan has one of the lowest per capita energy productions in the world. Despite billions of dollars of development aid from the U.S. and other international donors, barely one-third of Afghans have regular access to electricity. Much of the electricity that is available is produced in neighboring countries Pakistan, Iran and Uzbekistan.
“Most of our industrial parks in the seven major cities are just receiving a limited percentage of electricity,” says Ghulam Farooq Qazizada, Afghanistan’s deputy minister for electricity.
Qazizada elaborated saying that industries are getting about 15 percent of the power they need. This has led to some businesses spending three times the normal cost on generator power.
Creating transparency and accountability
At an international aid summit in July, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Afghanistan’s future security would have to be judged by jobs and economic opportunities. Dozens of countries attending the Tokyo conference pledged more than $16 billion worth of aid to be paid in the years following the NATO pullout of Afghanistan.
U.S. lawmakers may be reluctant to push for a speedy troop withdrawal as a means to protect aid dollars and ensure that international pledges are spent on projects that help average Afghans, while expanding opportunities for U.S. corporations.
However, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and members of the Karzai regime have been accused previously of widespread corruption and drug trafficking, a major problem preventing the smooth transfer of power from NATO to the Karzai transitional government.
Recent emails leaked by Stratfor, a private security firm, show that the Bush administration advised the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to abandon investigations into drug trafficking by members of the Karzai government, including by Ahmad Wali Karzai, the half brother of the current president.
“The brother of President Karzai of Afghanistan is under investigation by DEA as a major narcotics trafficker. For political reasons, DEA has been told to backoff [sic] by the White House and CIA. DEA is seeing a direct nexus between terrorism and narcotics in Afghanistan with narcotics sales being used to fund jihadist operations,” wrote Stratfor vice president of intelligence Fred Burton in 2007.
The widespread corruption is confirmed by Transparency International, an independent watchdog group recording government transparency and accountability. According to the group, Afghanistan has the fourth most corrupt government in the world, a concerning prospect for international donors hoping that aid dollars will be spent on well designed infrastructure projects and infrastructure development.
Without a strong, accountable government in Kabul, robust aid packages are unlikely to improve infrastructure or future economic opportunities for Afghans.
Speaking about the conditions of the massive aid pledges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented, saying, “That must include fighting corruption, improving governance, strengthening the rule of law, increasing access to economic opportunity for all Afghans, especially for women.”
Security failures
While the U.S.-led NATO coalition has made significant advances against al-Qaida, the Taliban and other armed insurgent groups appear well armed and poised to challenge the Karzai government after the troop withdrawal.
Sixty-nine percent of the U.S. public now oppose the war in Afghanistan, according to a 2012 New York Times/CBS poll. This reflects a growing discontentment with the mounting troop deaths and continual security setbacks.
The poll was conducted shortly after an April attack by Afghan insurgents, one of the worst attacks on U.S. forces since the beginning of the war. The incursion, thought to be carried out by approximately 200 fighters from the Taliban and the al-Haqqani networks, left 47 dead in a day long gun battle that exposed the weakness of the Afghan forces.
These attacks have become an increasingly regular occurrence as the Taliban and al-Haqqani network show no sign of relenting in their attacks on NATO and Afghan forces. The security breakdown underscores the concerns held by many, including U.S. policymakers concerned about the power vacuum in Kabul following the 2014 pullout.
Commenting on the incident, Afghan Parliamentarian Wazhma Frogh said: “This shows just how ridiculous the transition policy is. I’ve never seen a street battle before, but what I saw today was the fragility of these police officers. It really shows how poor police training has been.” Although Afghan police were able to eventually end the insurrection without the help of NATO forces, the attack raises serious questions about the security of Kabul after the proposed NATO pullout.
Additionally, U.S. policymakers have turned their attention to Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor, where many militants are thought to be hiding during U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Many fighters, including those involved in the April attack, are suspected of training at Pakistani madrassas, or “religious schools,” in Waziristan province.
The U.S. has stepped up the use of unmanned drones for monitoring and striking suspected militants. Drone strikes have been widely criticized by Pakistani groups and by human rights organizations claiming the indiscriminate strikes have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of civilians and pose a violation of international law.
Pakistani journalist and author Ahmed Rashid commented on the strained relations in a Democracy Now interview, saying, “We are really in a very serious crisis now. I think there are tensions between Karzai and the Americans, between Pakistan and the Americans—Pakistan being critical because they are housing all the Taliban leadership with which the Americans want to talk, and are talking.”
Although the U.S. wants to sign a security pact to ensure cooperation in combating the Pakistani Taliban and similar armed groups, Rashid believes, “There is very little support in the region for a long term American presence in the region beyond 2014, when the pullout is due.”