Can anyone win a duel with someone else who wants to die (or someone who seeks martyrdom)? If the martyrdom-seeker kills his opponent, then he has won. And if he is killed, then he will go to paradise where 72 virgins await him. This fictional duel between an American soldier and a Taliban fighter reflects the nature of the war in Afghanistan, which the Bush administration had once lost, and then lost after it both the war in Iraq and the War on Terror. The Afghan war was then lost by the Obama administration again, even after the surge there which did not produce the desired results. Nearly one year ago, President Barack Obama announced an increase in the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan by 30 thousand soldiers, and also declared that the withdrawal of the coalition troops will begin in July 2011 when security will be handed over to Afghan troops. The assumption was that the military successes that will follow after the surge will justify the withdrawal, something which did not happen, and perhaps the opposite happened. One example is enough in this regard: I read in the New York Times a lengthy report written by Alissa Ruben which concluded that the Taliban reach has extended to the north where they did not have any considerable presence prior to the war (can readers recall the Northern Alliance that was opposed to the Taliban?) This is despite the fact that American and German troops in the region have increased twofold in the past year. The situation now is as follows: There are about 150,000 coalition troops, and the war costs the United States 120 billion dollars each year. The number of U.S. soldiers killed this year is nearly 500, a record number of U.S. deaths since 2001. Can the United States endure this human and financial bleeding forever? The Taliban seem to be confident of their victory, as they fight in various parts of the country, and are waiting for the U.S. withdrawal scheduled for 2014 to return to their posts. I believe that President Obama is aware of all this, but he cannot find a way to withdraw without first hitting the same lucky streak that got him to the White House. For instance, killing the leaders of al-Qaeda, specifically Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, may give the Americans the excuse to say: We won, and then leave the country to the Taliban who do not have any foreign ambitions, and do not threaten the United States or other countries; in fact, war was declared against them only after they refused to hand over al-Qaeda's fighters to the Americans following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The U.S. strategic review was honest in its observations, but stopped short from admitting defeat. I particularly noticed two sentences that I believe to be the crux of the matter: The first one was the statement that war progress was fragile but reversible, and that victory requires an improved understanding of Pakistan's strategic priorities. I do not think that fragile progress will end up being reversed to the extent that the Taliban would wage an attack similar to the Tet Offensive in February 1968, with the Americans leaving Kabul on board helicopters from the roof of the U.S. embassy. However, I do not think that success in Afghanistan is possible either, without the help of Pakistan, starting with the elimination of safe havens within Pakistan's borders used by the militants. Pakistan's military intelligence ‘invented' the Taliban in the mid-nineties, convincing the Americans of their worth in the beginning, although the Americans now deny their role in this affair. However, the situation now has gone beyond that old history, and Pakistan does not want to be under siege by India on the one hand and by a regime that it fears will forge an alliance with India on the other hand. For this reason, its support for the militants prevents the spread of Indian influence into Afghanistan. Frankly, I do not see any possible exit out of Afghanistan that the Americans can take to save face. The military situation is as I described it above. Furthermore, the Bush administration had sought the impossible, and left that legacy to the Obama administration, which namely is the aim of building a powerful central government in Afghanistan, and an economy capable of sustaining the country. However, Afghanistan has never known a powerful central government before, but only knew a consensus among its various ethnic and religious groupings which have areas of influence throughout the country. The occupation has led to the emergence of a corrupt regime that occupies the lowest rank in the Corruption Perceptions Index, to the extent that a report by the British Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) said that there is no state in Afghanistan but only a Mafia. Hence, the Afghan people now are a victim stuck between the Taliban and the occupation Mafia. [email protected]
