Security situation in Afghanistan is challenging both to the US and its allies. Attacks and suicide bombing have been increasing since the US led invasion of 2001 which over threw Talibans. The Afghan government has been asking for reconciliation with Talibans on regular basis. US and NATO countries have been constantly changing their afghan strategy but could not find a one to work well in Afghanistan. Recently with the appointment of Gen. David Petraeus work has almost been completed on a new US strategy to win the Afghan war or at least reduce Talibans and Al-Qaeda attacks both in Afghanistan and the Pakistani border tribal areas in the North West Frontier Province called FATA (federally administered tribal areas). Most of the violence in Afghanistan occurs in south, and east which border the Pakistani tribal areas with Afghanistan. Talibans and Al-Qaeda are believed to have safe havens in those porous border areas in Pakistan. Talibans and other insurgents recently have so much been emboldened that they are carrying out massive attacks and ambushes in the capital of NWFP, Peshawar.
A group of over 100 Talibans carried out few attacks in less than two weeks on a port in Peshawar with rocket launchers and grenades which supplies US logistical and other supplies to US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. Over 300 supplies laden vehicles were put on fire including humvee vehicles.
Talibans in Afghanistan attacking civilians, Afghan government and other foreign forces on a daily basis. So far about 1039 allied forces have been killed including the 290 this year alone, the highest number of allied casualties in a single year since 2001.
US Commanders in Afghanistan have asked for about 20000 more troops to combat increasing Taliban attacks and train Afghan army and police. The US already has about 32000 troops stationed in Afghanistan not including about 30000 other allied forces. The 20000 US troops will include four combat brigades and one brigades of aviation. 3500 to 4000 US troops will arrive in Afghanistan by next month. The US is planning to double its forces from its current number by summer of next year.
Security situation in Iraq has improved after the famous US troops surge in 2007 and the Sunni Awakening in Anbar province.
Will sending more US troops to Afghanistan control the current deteriorating security situation? US commanders are experimentally applying same surge and Sunni Awakening formula in Afghanistan which they used in Iraq. The US commanders are very careful to call it a surge because they are still not sure whether the surge strategy will work in Afghanistan. But they are almost on the same plan including approaching the tribes in Afghanistan and some tribes in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan as they did in Anbar province of the famous Sunni Awakening. Having lived in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and from my personal experience of dealing with tribes in both side of the boarders , the Afghan security situation, tribal structure and Afghanistan’s geographical nature are fundamentally different than the Iraqi society and country infrastructure.
In Iraq most of the violence lately was occurring in Baghdad and in Anbar province. Most of the violence both against US troops and civilians was sectarian. Sunnis were not happy with Shia led dominated central government and the Iraqi national army and police. The US commanders understood the situation of the Sunni leaders. Negotiations with tribes and some insurgents Sunni groups were initiated by the US army in 2005. In return the US supported economic development projects and cash assistance to the tribal leaders. Sunni militia men were put on the payroll and were promised more authority in the Iraqi central government. This led to the Sunni and other insurgents groups to oppose Al-Qaeda and other insurgent groups to reduce attacks against US troops and other Iraqi civilians. While in Afghanistan the situation is not sectarian. Talibans who are Sunnis are not fighting the Shias. They are attacking any one including the Sunni civilians. According to some reports the Afghan government only controls 13% of the country. The rest is either with Talibans or warlords and drug traffickers. Negotiating and dealing with tribes in Afghanistan might be a good idea. But tribes are not strong enough at this time to prevent the same tribesmen who are Talibans as well. Three decades of war in Afghanistan has significantly changed the tribes’ historical structures. Young and new warlords and commanders who were fighting against Soviets forces and later on against one another, have taken power from the tribal chiefs. While in Iraq the country population was not much displaced by the current war. Tribal system in Iraq is still strong and more organized which made it easy for the US to negotiate and work with respected and known tribal leaders there. If proper security plans for the protection of the tribal elders are not prepared in Afghanistan, there might be attacks on tribal elders which may lead to the unwillingness of other tribal chiefs to stand in the way of Talibans. Incidents this year in Orakzai Agency bordering Afghanistan, which killed a group of well-known tribal elders by a single suicide Talib bomber and recently another tribal and religious leader was killed in Bajuar area. Rushing to deal with tribes may create permanent flaws in the plan and subsequent failure of the whole strategy.
A well planned assessment of the tribes should be prepared in consultation with more tribal authority and less Afghan government involvement, including an organized militia-like organization of each tribe and coordination among the tribal chiefs. The Afghan tribal society is still very much the same as it was few hundred years ago. There are still differences among the tribal chiefs of the same tribe and in some cases personal enmities for years. Turning their US supplied guns against one another might not be ruled out unless the Afghan government and the US get strong and genuine guarantees from the tribal chiefs. Taking enmity of strong and well-armed Taliban by the weak and ill-organized tribes will be a serious future responsibility for tribal chiefs in the Afghan tradition. As planned by the US and Afghan government to recruit only 100 to 200 militia from each district to help and assist the Afghan and American forces are simply not enough. On average a district in Afghanistan consists of 100 villages. 200 militia men will not be a difference in bringing security or stopping Talibans from entering different villages and attacking Afghan police and army postitions.The Afghan tribes where most of the Talibans operate are not happy with the mounting civilian casualties by US and NATO forces, corrupt and weak central government in Kabul. US and other NATO countries should work on winning the hearts and minds of the tribes. High number of tribal militia, direct involvement of the tribal chiefs and capabale Afghan government personnel dealing with the chiefs in this process, accompanied by more developments projects for the tribes, creation job opportunities in the tribal areas, reducing civilian casualties and reconciliation with reconcilable Talibans, will have positive effects on security situation in the troubled villages or provinces.
In Iraq of course the US has been dealing with a permanent enemy Iran bordering Iraq. Iran has been supplying weapons and financial assistance to most of the Shia militant leaders including the radical Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadar. Iran realized that a strong and peaceful majority pro-Iranian Shia leadership in Iraq will be in its long term interest as compared to violent and troubled neighbor. Therefore Iran’s change of mind and the Syrian government not getting involved actively helped the US to succeed in bringing down the violence in the country as well. But in Afghanistan the US is also surrounded by Iran and the Pakistan. Pakistani government, although not anti-US but most of the militants, Taliban and Al-Qaeda are believed to have safe sanctuaries in the tribal border areas in Pakistan. The US has blamed Iran several times that Iran might be supplying arms to Talibans while at the same time taking active part in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan pro-Iranian Shia population is a minority but very well positioned in the government including cabinet members and a vice president. Iran may not like to see Talibans gaining ground in Afghanistan, as Talibans are more pro-Saudis and are Sunnis. But Iran wants to see US stuck in an endless war with Talibans in Afghanistan. Iran knows that getting pro-Iranian government in Afghanistan or Shia led leadership is not possible as compared to Iraqi government .Therefore Iran may not be serious in its efforts to help in bringing peace in Afghanistan. As far as Pakistan is concerned, the Afghan government has said in numerous occasions that Talibans and insurgents are coming from their safe havens from the tribal areas of Pakistan which border Afghanistan. The Afghan government has been arguing that the Pakistani army intelligence wing the ISI has been supporting Talibans to carry out attacks inside Afghanistan. The relationship between the Afghan leadership and the former Pakistani President Pervez Musharaf were at the lowest level as Pakistan was denying the Afghan government claims.
With the new political leadership, the departure of Gen.Musharaf and reshuffle in the ISI leadership may help to some extent but the problems remain critical and dangerous. According to some experts that Pakistan still sees India as a potential threat not only from its borders with India in the east but from its western borders with Afghanistan. Pakistan quietly blames the Afghan government for letting the Indian influence into the country including Indian intelligence agents based in Indian consulates and embassy trying to create instability in Pakistan. Dealing with the Afghan neighbors, the US must work on sustainable long-term and concrete strategies. US must listen to the concerns of parties involved. Peace in Afghanistan may not be possible with out peace and stability in Pakistan. Both countries are dependent on each other in almost every aspect of the daily lives of the public involved. US must plan an aggressive and long term strategy to deal with Pakistan and support the civilian government in its efforts to bring peace and stability to its tribal areas and work on more economic developments including assistance in the fields of education, health and infrastructure. Although the tribes in Pakistan may be seen as anti-US but they will still welcome US economic aid which will help in the development of these tribal areas.
In Iraq the US has been dealing with a country in which the insurgents and Al-Qaeda were based either in the center or in the settled areas of the country. But in Afghanistan Taliban and Al-Qaeda operate either from mountains or sanctuaries in the porous borders and inaccessible tribal areas both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Therefore more support and pressure on the Pakistani government may help in controlling the border crossing between Afghanistan and Pakistan
In Iraq the US was dealing with a strong central government including effective and strong leadership. But in Afghanistan the central government is nothing more than a council of city supervisors. The central leadership has lost its credibility to the public due to weak and ineffective leadership and poor governance of law. Karzai failed to curb rampant corruption and find capable people to run the country. The inability of the central government to control warlords, end corruption, provide social justice, basic living necessitates and strengthen the rule of law has created a severe gap between the government and the public. Although weak and corrupt leadership in third world countries is a common phenomena. But in Afghanistan this led to the lost of public support for the central government in its efforts to effectively fight Talibans and Al-Qaeda. Any time when a country is engulfed by rampant corruption, run by ineffective leadership, safe heaven for drug pins and the inability of the government to provide poor masses with social justice and basic living necessities, this leads the common masses into deep poverty and economic hardship. This pushes the public into the arms of a third force to take on the corrupt and elite leadership.
Therefore a strong and capable central leadership should be elected in Afghanistan to clean the government from corrupt officials, provide social justice to comma masses and create a confidence in public by keeping close proximity with them and expediting the reconstruction and rehabilitation process in the country.
In Afghanistan, as opposite in Iraq, the US is also dealing with a war that is fueled by the drug money. In some provinces drug-traffickers have created their own armed groups to protect their businesses. Talibans also have benefited from this effort and it generates millions of dollars annually to support their activities. The central government in Afghanistan has not yet taken any concrete steps against eliminating those responsible for the drug trade. A drug free Afghanistan will probably also help in the security and reconstruction of the country. Poor farmers should be provided with alternative high yielding profit crops and alternative–livelihood projects by creating a systematic and continuous process, actively supported by the US and honest Afghan government officials.
In Iraq the US was dealing with a country which has great infrastructure and mostly plain areas. But in Afghanistan most of the country is nothing but rugged terrain specially the border provinces where most of the fighting is taking place. This presents a tough logistical and military choice. 75% of US and NATO logistical supplies are going through Pakistan’s most dangerous North West Frontier Province, including 40% fuel supplies. These convoys are usually attacked by Talibans. While in Iraq the US did not have much of this problem. The Afghans did not have the chance to develop roads in 30 years as war kept the country from developing accessibility to some far flung areas. To fight an effective war against Talibans and insurgents, the US needs reliable supplying routes and workable roads to transport its troops and logistical support in the country. US should treat the Afghan problem as a long term situation and focus more on developing the country infrastructure, which may also help in winning the public support, will lead to the creation of jobs and businesses markets.
The US should not only rely on sending more troops to Afghanistan in hope of winning the war. US should also pay more attention to the wining of hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Without the support of the Afghan public this war may not be an easy victory. Sending 20000 to 30000 troops may be helpful in training the afghan national army, police and fighting the Talibans and Al-Qaeda fronts but this will not the solve the whole security situation. More emphasis should be given to delivering more economic aid to the Afghan public. A new US continuous and aggressive strategy based on effectively delivering more economic aid to the afghan people, reducing civilian casualties and unnecessary house searches which some times result in civilians casualties, serious efforts to reduce drug trafficking and corruption in the Afghan government, dealing with a strong capable and honest central afghan leadership, training the Afghan national army and police and reconciliation process with moderate Talibans, is needed to win the war.

The author is US based political analyst and expert on US-Afghan relations. He can be reached by email: HYPERLINK “mailto:Skhan72@aol.com” Skhan72@aol.com