The danger of failure in Afghanistan and Iraq (Der Spiegel, Germany)

0
The danger of failure in Afghanistan and Iraq (Der Spiegel, Germany)There is a name that is quite often mentioned today in the debate over the wars of America, a name that does not bode well for US President Barack Obama. This is Lyndon Johnson, 36 President of the United States of America. Johnson, who, like Obama, was a democrat and an energetic reformer, was eventually defeated, because the American troops fought a war with him abroad. The Vietnam War destroyed every chance that Johnson would be remembered as one of the most prominent American presidents of the 20 century.

Johnson took up problems that no one before him even dared touch - including his predecessor, John F. Kennedy. His name is associated with a whole set of programs, known under the general title "Great Society". It was Johnson who bravely fought racial discrimination in the United States. He declared war on poverty, welcomed immigrants of non-European origin to the USA, reformed the education system from top to bottom, fought for civil rights, and with his medical programs laid the foundation for a new health policy based on which Obama can develop success today.

But all these great achievements practically disappeared amid Johnson's miscalculations in Indochina. Beginning in 1966, when the American campaign in Vietnam was nearing its peak, the expression “crisis of confidence” became popular in the United States. With his foreign policy, Johnson ruined the success of domestic politics. He was the president of wartime, and the Americans were not able to combine this look with the look of a peacemaker in internal affairs.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama will soon find himself in the same predicament. At this point, the entire current world order is likely to be the subject of heated debate.

How the president acts in armed conflict

Iraq has never been Vietnam, and Afghanistan will never be. The problem of overly hasty comparisons that critics make is that they embellish historical facts. At the peak of the Vietnam War, there were 543000 US troops in that country. This is more than twice as many as it is today in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. By the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, more than 58000 American soldiers had died there. In 1968, up to a thousand troops died there every week. During the entire conflict, at least 3 million Vietnamese, as well as more than half a million Cambodians and Lao, were killed. Anyone familiar with these numbers is unlikely to make comparisons with Vietnam.

Nevertheless, there are similarities in the way the American presidents dealt with these conflicts politically. Like his predecessors Johnson and Richard Nixon, Obama promised that the wars of America would soon come to an end. Like Johnson and Nixon, Obama declared that his goal was to regain power over the countries occupied by American troops, their governments, by doing so as soon as possible.

Obama promised to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, and in July, 2011 would begin to return troops from Afghanistan. Nothing like this will happen. Only in November, all 30000 supplementary servicemen from the replenishment team will arrive in Afghanistan, and then the number of the American contingent in this country will be over 100 with more than a thousand people. If Obama intends to fulfill his promise and begin the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in July 2011, these replenishment soldiers will have less than nine months to drastically change the situation in the Hindu Kush mountains. Judging by today's situation, this is a hopeless undertaking.

Winning battles, losing the war

The hopelessness of the war in Afghanistan has become particularly apparent in recent weeks. In the small town of Marjah in southern Afghanistan, thousands of British and American soldiers, with tremendous effort and considerable losses, defeated the Taliban. But on closer examination it turns out that this is not a victory at all. Today, after the powerful offensive of NATO troops, Marjah is not liberated and is not pacified. NATO troops do not actually control the city, since the enemy, broken into pieces, gradually returns and takes possession of it again. The actions of the troops led by the United States are bordering on hopelessness and are a bright personification of everything that has been happening in Afghanistan for almost nine years now.

The Americans and their allies win all the battles, but lose the war. This week, world public opinion is being prepared for a major and supposedly decisive attack on Kandahar, which is the birthplace of the Afghan Taliban. The sounding rhetoric is very reminiscent of the operational reports of the generals who failed because of failure in Vietnam. And one does not have to be a visionary to predict that soon bad will rush from Kandahar with a powerful stream news. Once again they will prove that in this war, no matter how you call it - the battle against terror, the counter-guerrilla campaign or the peacekeeping operation - it is impossible to win.

Most of the Afghan people, along with their corrupt and incompetent Kabul government, are no longer interested in the success of the Americans and their allies. In fact, today the impression is that the Afghans want more than anything to see all these foreigners disappear from their land, leaving where they came from - even if it means the coming to power of the new Taliban government.

The prospect of civil war is always near

In Iraq, everything was different from the very beginning. Maybe Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but his regime in its own way brought modernization to the country, the fruits of which the Iraqi society enjoys to this day. Saddam used religion when it was consistent with his goals, but ultimately he was a secular leader who admired engineers and was enthusiastic about science. His views on the role of women in society can be considered advanced and enlightened by Middle Eastern standards.

For this reason, it was much easier for Americans to wage war in Iraq, although it led to a long series of catastrophic events, especially in the 2006 and 2007 years. Iraqi society is very different from Afghan - it is mainly urban, the average level of education there is much higher, and the country's infrastructure compared to Afghanistan can be considered modern. That is why Iraq has always been immune to any attempts at Talibanization.

Despite all their ethnic and religious differences, despite the problem of the Kurds, despite the disputes over oil export revenues, rational-minded interlocutors could always and everywhere be found in Iraq with sufficient influence to negotiate reliable solutions to political issues. . Since the American invasion in the spring of 2003, Iraqis have elected a parliament three times, and each time the elections were fairly democratic. When Obama came to power - and this was under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki - the country was on the right track, although this path was rather bumpy, with numerous obstacles. But it was still the way - and no acts of terrorism and attacks could prevent the Iraqi people from arguing about the future of their country mainly verbally, and not with weapons in hand. However, in recent weeks, this statement has begun to lose its validity.

Return authoritarian leadership


Now, with Obama sticking to his plan and intending to withdraw all troops from Iraq by the end of 2011, fanatics and terrorists see that they will soon have a new chance. Most importantly, Iraqi leaders suddenly remembered their old and bad habits. The authoritarian leadership style, which has weakened over several years due to the desire to preserve the national unity of the country, is again coming back.

Prime Minister Maliki, whose party won fewer seats in parliament as a result of the March elections than his main rival, Ayad Alavi, holds on to his seat with stubbornness that causes serious concern. For several months now he has been hindering the formation of a new government. Over the past years, at the cost of tremendous efforts, many compromises have been achieved, and in part this is the result of the threatening presence of American troops, whose numbers in Iraq are still 90000 people. But now these compromises suddenly seem less binding. All of this can be considered a consequence of Obama's imprudent foreign policy, which often behaves like an idealist with little awareness of reality.

For the time being, the prospect of a civil war cannot simply be eliminated from the daily life of today's Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus, if Obama wants to prevent the instantaneous disappearance of all conquests in Iraq, he will have to reconsider his decision on the withdrawal of troops one way or another, which will inevitably lead to a loss of presidential credibility. Like Germany after World War II, Iraq will need the stabilizing presence of American troops for a long time, and the American authorities will eventually realize that they need to maintain some threatening presence of their troops to intimidate the Iraqi neighbor of Iran.

Gloomy forecast for Afghanistan

What is the situation in Baghdad and Kabul in 2010? The answer to this question in relation to Iraq is hardly more difficult to formulate than in relation to Afghanistan, because the forecasts for Afghanistan are always grim. Territorial seizures carried out by coalition forces have always proved to be short-lived, and in practice large fragments of the territory of this country control various factional groups, clans and tribal leaders along with field commanders, whom the debaters are dumping into one heap, pasting one label - the Taliban . In fact, Afghan society (the same can be said about its enemies) is a strikingly complex and intricate web consisting of cultural, ethnic, religious, geographic, and tribal affections and loyalties. And foreigners should not even hope that they will be able to understand this jumble well enough.

Pakistani, Iran, Russia and even China also influence Afghan society. To realize this, one must understand the Uzbek influence, Tajik relations and old Russian contacts. It is necessary to know how all these threads were made during the 30 years of war, you need to get acquainted with all the stories of loyalty and betrayal, with the legends of the Mujahideen. A person who does not know who will be son-in-law and godfather, the leader of which tribe gives bribes to which police chief, will always be confronted with insoluble riddles.

America is about to shift its focus to Pakistan.

From such a society it is impossible to form a state, at least according to American criteria and methods. The current US Ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, has long been at odds with the Kabul administration on a number of issues. American special representative Richard Holbrooke is already viewed today as the sworn enemy of President Hamid Karzai, whose incompetence after eight years of rule is considered by many to be a proven fact. It is clear that American diplomacy is about to give up Kabul, and instead focus its efforts on neighboring Pakistan, which, as a nuclear power and a real refuge for Taliban terrorists, has long attracted more attention than Afghanistan.

Attempts to make sound predictions about military campaigns have always been ungrateful. The upcoming strengthening of the grouping in Afghanistan, similar to what was going on in Iraq in 2007, can change the situation. Many welcomed the appointment of General David Petraeus to the post of commander in Afghanistan, considering it an encouraging sign. However, the Iraqi experience of Petraeus, who, thanks to smart solutions, succeeded in turning the tide in 2008, can be a hindrance in Afghanistan. Petraeus himself has repeatedly said that Iraq is not Afghanistan. But Petraeus is all the same Petraeus, so one should be afraid that he will try to apply those methods in Afghanistan that have proven themselves in Iraq.

It is easy to predict that they will not work there. A radical turn in Iraq came mainly due to the fact that the Sheikhs of the Sunnis went to the other side and created an alliance with the Americans - first in the province of Anbar, and then throughout the country. And the reason is not at all that more American soldiers were sent to Iraq. The United States does not have such potential allies in Afghanistan, unless we dare to imagine that Petraeus and the United States one day openly and directly begin negotiations with the Taliban.

This is what Karzai wants to do, and he has been secretly doing this for quite some time. From the point of view of the Kabul government, the United States, with its intransigent strategy to fight the Taliban, is quickly becoming an obstacle to achieving peace in the country. Karzai has been working against the Americans for some time. He recently demonstrated this openly, firing his Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, who in the West was considered one of the most competent members of the Kabul government, with a scandal. And let it seem like a terrible dream today, but if Karzai and his clan have to put everything on the map, then he can personally lead the resistance movement to the West in his own country. Thus, he will deliver a final, albeit absurd blow to the mission of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

The Iraqi problems are insignificant compared to the Afghan ones. At least it seemed so until recently. Although the constant reports of destructive terrorist attacks in the country continue to shock the whole world, the situation in Iraq has improved significantly, in part due to the successful development of the national army and police forces.

The southern part of Baghdad, which only three years ago was a deadly fighting zone, in which militants, snipers and American soldiers fought each other in the terrible conditions of urban fighting, today looks like a completely peaceful and completely normal area. Peaceful everyday life has returned to cities with notorious names - Falujah, Ramadi, Najaf. There again the markets work, street holidays are held, children walk in school uniform. But now a dangerous crisis is beginning to form in the country.

The refusal of Prime Minister Maliki to admit his defeat in the elections has led the country into a political dead end, and perhaps even created a power vacuum. The militants again began shooting at representatives of other ethnic groups, but this time they are not controlled by external forces, terrorist groups and Iranian intelligence. In Iraq, a growing new internal conflict. Its reasons are also of an internal nature, and much of the blame can be put on incompetence in formulating a political course.

Dispute over oil revenues

It is important to note that for years Iraqis have been arguing over the national oil law. Despite all the negotiations, despite all the pressure from abroad and within the country, they still could not find a fair and honest way of distributing income from their natural wealth, although this could be a key point for ensuring peace in the country.

The failure to provide such an important breakthrough goes hand in hand with other innumerable weaknesses of those in power. For example, they were unable to solve the problem of supplying Iraq with electricity and water, as well as provide for many other basic needs of Iraqis. The people get tired of the difficult political games in Baghdad and begin to turn away from their leaders, who are clearly much more interested in their own well-being than in the well-being of their country.

This is an alarming signal, since messages of this kind are beginning to come from friends of Iraq, who know this country well. Among them is the former US ambassador, Ryan Crocker (Ryan Crocker), warning that some of the recent achievements in Iraq could be undone again. It seems that the hope for the peaceful coexistence of all Iraqis is melting away again, just at an important historical moment when the United States decided to completely withdraw its troops. Nothing good will come of it.

Action options in Afghanistan are extreme and controversial.

If you look at things objectively and impartially, you understand that Obama does not have much choice in Iraq. If, as commander in chief of the US military, he does indeed withdraw all the troops, the failure of the Iraqi experiment will become more likely. And sooner or later, the US government will be convinced of this. Moderate forces in Baghdad will be able to continue the implementation of their project only if there is a stabilizing American military presence. It would be a fatal mistake to deprive them of such an opportunity.

In Afghanistan, the situation is different. There the options for action are extreme and controversial. And it is very difficult to predict the consequences of choosing one or another option. The Europeans prefer the option with the rapid withdrawal of all troops, and this strategy can be characterized as follows: "after us even the flood." Obama is also under increasing pressure from the forces that want him to quickly complete a hopeless operation in Afghanistan, so that after this unfriendly Afghans will be left to themselves. Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, Australia and many other countries either withdraw their troops, or begin to doubt the need for their participation in the Afghan war. The coalition is collapsing, and Obama has to make a difficult choice: either continue the fighting in the form of an increasingly ruinous American-British war, or end this war without achieving victory. Neither option is particularly attractive, and therefore another powerful attempt can and should be made that can lead to a more constructive solution to the problem.

Today, the factors of the "Big Game"

Before the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, was forced to resign, he declared that it was important to end the war not quickly, but correctly. Banal, but the right statement. If other actions are to follow the war, they cannot be limited to the introduction of more and more US military units. In Afghanistan, all the factors that determined the character of the historical “Big Game” of the 19 century between the British Empire and the Russians still work. Conflict can be resolved here or there, but not within Afghan borders.

If Obama really is the Messianic world leader, as he was called everywhere after being elected to the presidency, he must force all forces to gather again at the same table at an important conference on Afghanistan. States, such as Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran, as well as the Taliban and some Afghan warlords in one form or another should be involved. Since the situation is complex and confusing, only within the framework of such a conference will it be possible to find an effective way out of this seemingly guaranteed catastrophe.

If this kind of recent diplomatic effort is not realized, if the current senseless and aimless conflict continues, then it will be easy to predict the future of Afghanistan. The American allies will flee the sinking ship, doing it slowly at first, and then faster and faster. Over time, even the United Nations will leave it, if only for the protection of its employees. The country will plunge into chaos, which will end with the emergence of the Taliban in the role of saviors. The story will go full circle, all the sacrifices and efforts will be in vain, and Afghanistan will return to where it was in 2001 year.

The final phase of the struggle for US leadership in the world

In Iraq and Afghanistan, much more is at stake than simply stabilizing these countries and their societies. These conflicts are connected with entire regions, with political spheres of influence. This is a kind of final phase of the struggle for world leadership of the United States. It is possible that historians after many years will call the beginning of the 21 century the period when the United States lost its superpower status on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, giving it to China, which is currently using "soft power" around the world. Many today believe that this power is already beyond the power of the United States. It is also quite possible that Barack Obama will go down in history as the president, who finally announced the decline of American world domination.

But in these months and years, on which the world economic crisis of historical proportions has a powerful imprint, not only the status of the United States and their role in the world are at stake. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, of course, mostly American wars, but because of them three major players in global politics are experiencing their moment of truth. The UN, NATO and the European Union are at risk of collateral damage from these wars, especially from the war in Afghanistan.

Absence of the European Union

In Afghanistan, all three players have shown that, in the role of anti-crisis interventionist forces, they have proved themselves to be costly, but complete losers. Yes, the UN has successfully implemented vaccination and education programs in Afghanistan, as well as in some places has improved the health care system. This must be recognized. But she suffered a complete fiasco as a self-proclaimed expert in matters of state-building. NATO during the operation of the coalition forces proved to be a handful of ever-quarreling national armies, each of which acted in its own way and failed to either win the war or establish peace. And the Europeans in Afghanistan were simply absent as a single European Union. Individual European countries that sent troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan fought more vigorously in defense of their own interests (as they do in Brussels) than with the enemies of the new Afghanistan.

Such conclusions lead us to a sobering conclusion. In Afghanistan, the hope of the existence of reasonable multilateral solutions to key world problems is fading. In any case, today there are great chances that representatives of the world community will fail in the test that they themselves have imposed - the Afghan test. And this will have consequences for our entire world order.

The positive consequence may be that the parties analyze their common failures and failures and find ways to implement meaningful reforms that will include changing the structure of NATO, the UN and the EU. But no one believes that this will happen. Negative effects are more likely. Members of the international coalition did not find mutual understanding in Afghanistan. In fact, they are more distant from each other. New fault lines are emerging, especially between the US and Europe, as well as between European countries, albeit on a smaller scale. In particular, Germany found itself isolated and even subjected to international ridicule due to its difficult and special role in this military mission.

If the Afghan mission ends just as inglorious as it is going now, and the coalition members simply slip away from Afghanistan one by one, leaving no prospects for the country and region, this will be a complete failure in terms of global politics. That is why world leaders related to the Afghan mission must now find ways to interact and cooperate, not acting in their usual routine, but with all seriousness, with full awareness of the dramatic nature of the situation, with the firm intention to begin work on finding reasonable and reliable solutions.

Today, the agenda is the question of holding a major conference on Afghanistan, which will put an end to the catastrophic state of affairs, bringing together all the players at the negotiating table, even the most dubious.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"