(MintPress)—The coordinated attacks over the weekend by the Taliban and the Al-Haqqani network that left 47 people dead and dozens more injured, are casting doubts on the long-term security of Kabul. The bombings and subsequent gun battles represent the most brazen insurgent attacks since the start of the American invasion in 2001. While these developments are unlikely to change the timetable for the proposed 2013 American withdrawal, recent civil unrest has prompted many to question the broader NATO pullout plan that will hand power to the transitional Karzai government in 2014.
The Attack
Of the approximately 200 insurgents thought to be involved in the attacks, a single suspect was captured by Afghan security forces. The suspect confirmed suspicions that a broader “Spring offensive” is now underway.
Speaking on the incursions that targeted hotels, westerns embassies and other critical infrastructure, 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.
Elaborating on the future security concerns, MP Wazhma Frogh continues saying, “At the same time the insurgency has been so smart. They have become so sophisticated and well trained. They can attack major buildings if they want and our intelligence agencies have no idea.”
Although the attacks have locals questioning the ability of Afghan security to maintain order, others were less skeptical. U.S. General John Allen, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, said he was, “enormously proud of the Afghan response” adding, “No one is underestimating the seriousness of the attacks, and we’ll work hard to determine the circumstances that led to today’s events.”
Recent misconduct by NATO forces, including the internationally known Quran burning incident have broken fragile Afghan alliances. Popular street protests now typify the growing local frustration with the protracted American occupation. This discontent was only exacerbated during last month’s massacre of 16 Afghan villagers. The victims, all non-combatants, were killed in a shooting rampage by a rogue U.S. soldier.
Peace Talks
These troubling setbacks come at a critical juncture in peace talks focused on an American withdrawal from the volatile central Asian country. In the days following the Kabul attacks, Australia announced that it plans to unilaterally remove all combat troops by the end of 2013.
In November of last year, 90 countries gathered in the German city of Bonn to discuss end game strategies for winding down the 10 year occupation of Afghanistan. However Pakistan, a key partner in the discussion, was conspicuously absent from the talks. Citing continued American drone strikes in the northern semi-lawless tribal territories, Islamabad withdrew from the conference and closed supply routes that carried 35% of ‘non-lethal’ supplies for NATO forces according to U.S. General William Fraser.
Vexed by an accidental drone strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the Pakistani Parliament unanimously voted to ban U.S. drone operations on Thursday, April 12 as a prerequisite for rebuilding relations. Washington apologized for the incident but continues to blame Islamabad for not taking the necessary preemptive measures to thwart insurgent activities along the porous border with Afghanistan. The Al-Haqqani branch of the Taliban is thought to train fighters in madrassas (religious schools) throughout Pakistan’s North Waziristan province.
The Taliban and allied insurgent groups are the target of these drone strikes. Opposition forces have roundly condemned the peace process and have yet to enter into formal negotiations.
Complicating transitional plans further is Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent demand for written pledges of financial support following the proposed NATO pullout by 2014. American officials have said that they expect to pay at least $4 billion dollars in annual military support although President Karzai wants formal written commitments of at least $2 billion dollars annually from the United States.
Recalculating the Costs of Prolonged Occupation
Talks of withdrawal run concurrent to recent announcements to slash defense spending by $487 million over the next ten years. With the budget decreases, President Obama has tried to create a smaller military footprint abroad also closing U.S.bases in Germany and removing combat troops from Iraq December of last year. While this is far from a neutral foreign policy of non-interference, domestic economic woes associated with the 2008 downturn have caused elected officials to consider the economic burden and negative externalities of massive military ventures abroad that at best produce marginal improvements in global security.
69% of Americans now oppose the war in Afghan, many supporting an immediate removal of combat troops. The confluence of domestic economic concerns and popular opinion may bring an end to American involvement before the proposed 2014 NATO pull-out.
Next month’s combined NATO-G-8 summit is expected to test the limits of the American lead pull-out plan as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced Thursday that his country has serious reservations about pulling NATO forces from Afghanistan in 2014. He mentioned too that China has similar doubts about the practicality of such timetables.
This opposition ahead of the NATO summit in Chicago could prompt America to push back proposed pull-out plans. Will America opt to unilaterally withdraw troops despite pressure from other NATO members? Answers should be forthcoming following the critical summit.