Afghanistan Military Strategies - Coursework Example

Afghan Strategy I The US military presence in Afghanistan remains controversial, both at home and abroad, but incredibly important in light of the unique political, economic and social situation in what is arguably one of the most underdeveloped countries in the world. Warlordism, economic stagnation and endemic fighting over the course of the past century and a half have relegated Afghanistan to the ranks of some of the poorest and wretched countries on earth. By arguing that Afghanistan is “wretched” one is obviously making a value judgment but what is meant here is that Afghanistan meets the Hobbsian definition of what constitutes a “state of nature”. Accordingly, for the majority of Afghan society over the past hundred years, life has been “nasty, brutish and short” (Hobbs, 1994). Poverty is endemic and life expectancy in this Central Asian country is only 45 years, according to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA, 2009). Barack Obama, newly anointed President of the United States of America, has entered into the fray with a completely new and novel approach to the problems afflicting Afghanistan. The new American policy approach includes the deployment of 17,000 additional soldiers in an attempt to stabilize country. Attempting to quell the return of the Taliban, more American troops are being deployed to the south where violence is endemic. Focusing on the joint tasks of stabilizing the country and reinvesting in reconstruction, the new regime in Washington is doing its best to make a break with the past and refocus on energies on uprooting the Taliban and stabilizing the country once and for all. According to David Loyn of the British Broadcasting Corporation, “the political system that is emerging in Afghanistan may not have the most rigorous democratic standards, but the Bush years of believing that countries could be fixed by imposing a voting system from outside are over.” (Loyn, 2009) President Barack Obama is working with his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai, to dramatically improve security in the country, as well as in the region (Armstrong & Rubin, 2003). Does the new policy approach enhance the national interests and security of the nations most involved in the outcome in Afghanistan? The United States, under President Obama, is taking a much more proactive role in Afghanistan understanding that instability in this country has global ramification. Arguing that the "the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan demands urgent attention" (Gallacher 2009), President Obama understands that insecurity in Afghanistan undermines security in the region. Accordingly, rooting out the Taliban in Afghanistan will necessitate rooting out the Taliban forces stationed in Pakistan and neighboring tribal areas. Afghanistan is sure to improve its security situation with the added troops and the decision to send additional American reinforcements to the troubled southern region coincide with a United Nations report that civilian casualties have increased by 39% since 2008. Thus, the major actors in the Afghanistan saga, the United States and Afghanistan, plus the important supporting actors of Canada and the countries of the European Union, will certainly benefit from a renewed focus from Washington on the region. Security remains the most important issue and it is finally being addressed by Washington. Afghan Strategy II Afghanistan remains one of the poorest and most underdeveloped countries in the world. Regional security, rooting out extremism and curtailing the production of opium are three important pillars of the US-Afghan relationship. Of course, this Central Asian country is presently under a joint NATO occupation following the US-led overthrow of the fanatical Taliban regime in the wake of the attacks of September 11th. The American-Afghani relationship is complex and the complexity has been a feature of this relationship since the early days of the invasion of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan when American support for the myriad of mujahadeen fighters effectively secured the independence of this country from the Soviet sphere. American support for the mujahadeen – both covert and overt - culminated in the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 and US support during this period of heightened tensions during the Cold War remains quite ironic in light of present circumstances and the aftermath of 9/11. Seeking to provide a thorough and in-depth introduction to President Obamas Revised Afghan Strategy in the wake of a new commitment to rooting out extremism and providing stability through a massive US troop deployment and curtailing the production of opium, the following will analyze the main US aims in Afghanistan in a comparative foreign policy perspective. Under a new administration in Washington, the United States has reoriented and refocused its policy approach to Afghanistan. This includes the deployment of 17,000 additional soldiers and added troop deployment to the south to stem the return of the Taliban. Attempting to stabilize the country and reinvest in reconstruction, Washington is refocusing its energies on eradicating the Taliban and finally stabilizing the country. While the economy has steadily improved since the overthrow of the Taliban regime in 2001, the country’s total GDP is estimated at just over $23 billion annually, the 113 lowest index on the planet. Accordingly, literally hundreds of corporations worldwide have higher annual earnings than the country of Afghanistan. Poverty breeds extremism and violence and the Taliban’s support for the al-Qaeda movement at the turn of the century brought home to America just how important a precarious economic, political and social situation in Afghanistan can be for the security of the United States. Afghan opium production is an important, yet frequently overlooked social concern for the United States, and attempts to wipe out its production will be explored in depth below (Cockburn, 1998). In 2006, the government of Afghanistan launched what was called an eight-pillar policy under the name of National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS). This multifaceted policy dealt with Regional Cooperation, Public Information, Eradication, Alternative Livelihood, Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, Institutional Development and Demand Reduction. Despite high hopes, one year later the government was unable to suppress the production of opium. Despite this, the government of Afghanistan is not deterred from reinserting more pressure to achieve its goals. There are high hopes that the United Nations, the US and its allies can help stem the flow of opium from this country. Afghanistan will need immense infusions of foreign support and strict obligations to help control the cultivation of opium while continuing to make progress on the security front (Tomsen, 2001). An annual statement released by US State Department on illegal drugs across the world states that criminal gangs and their donors have taken the advantage of the situation in Afghanistan to smuggle drugs and arms in and out of the country. Accordingly, the US campaign against drug trafficking in Colombia is said to be paying dividends after some four years. Colombia then may be an example for future emulation in its war on narcotic production (Armstrong et al., 2003). Three years after the US-led invasion, the opium economy in Afghanistan was estimated to be a whopping 60 per cent of that country’s total GDP in 2003 (Goodhand 2005). Accordingly, opium poppy production poses a major challenge to the Afghan authorities and their global partners in the War on Terror. In addition to being a highly addictive substance and a necessary ingredient in the cultivation of heroin, proceeds from opium production also fund terrorism, thus making it an international problem. Measures have been undertaken by the Afghans as well as by their international partners in attempting to stem the production, cultivation and distribution of opiate products. Current efforts though require added effort, possibly in conjunction with international actors since opium production is on the rise in Afghanistan. Until the growth of opium is halted, political stability in Afghanistan will be precarious at best. American Aims in Afghanistan and the Global American Strategy The three pillars of the American aims in Afghanistan include regional security, rooting out extremism and curtailing the production of opium. These three important pillars of the US-Afghan relationship have shaped US policy towards Afghanistan since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001. In addition to securing the country and maintain stability, American aims in Afghanistan also relate to a wider strategy in the region which aims to maintain US influence over the strategically important Caspian Sea region. Home to the largest enclosed body of water on the planet, the Caspian Sea is a geographically significant and increasingly hotly contested region of the world. Bordering Russia, Iran and the newly independent Central Asian states of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, the Caspian Sea region is home to extensive natural resources including recently discovered oil deposits. These oil deposits are estimated to be valued in the trillions of dollars and following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a variety of political actors, from all over the globe, have sought access to the natural wealth of the region. Former oil industry executive, and now current American Vice-President Dick Cheney famously remarked, "I cant think of a time when weve had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian" (Christian Science Monitor 2001). Accordingly, access to oil has quickly become a hotly contested issue with protagonists from East to West seeking to reap the benefits of the full-scale exploitation of what has quickly become one of the most geopolitically significant regions of the globe. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and at the turn of the century, new oil fields were discovered in the Caspian Sea near Kazakhstan. Although an overwhelmingly positive event in a world in which petroleum seems to be in constant short supply, oil extraction and processing in the Caspian region face a plethora of obstacles. An important obstacle facing developers of the Caspian Sea region is the neighborhood in which the region finds itself and the fact that extracted oil must travel by pipeline through what is arguably one of the most volatile regions of the world. US hegemony is thus maintained through an active presence in Afghanistan and a secure, pro-American country within the Caspian Sea region (Paul 2005). It is a sad fact that almost the entire economy is Afghanistan is opium-based. For every one individual out of seven, opium production is their main source of income. In 2007, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that for the second year straight, narcotic production in Afghanistan was the highest ever recorded. Report also revealed that almost 93 percent of total world opium production originated in Afghanistan. The cultivation of opium poppy grew and stretched from 165,000 hectares to over 193,000 hectares in 2007. This was speculated to be as a result of complimentary climatic conditions and massive cultivation and expansion in more fertile regions that contributed to the high yield. The new Administration of President Barack Obama has understood the importance of an unstable Afghanistan which produces and exports illegal drugs to the United States and he was maintained as well as increased the military contingent to this country. These steps are important and must be maintained for the joint benefit of both Afghanistan and the United States (Paris 2008). Comparative Policy The decision of the United States to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003 was an important watershed moment in world history. Iraq is arguably one of the most dangerous and violent places on earth and the bulk of US military efforts in the region since the invasion have been focused on quelling the insurgency. With the election of a new President in the United States, American foreign policy is refocused on Afghanistan, representing a strategic shift away from Iraq. President Barack Obama thus many options with respect to the American-Afghan relationship but the three most important aspects of this relationship – maintaining security, securing US regional interests and curtailing the spread and cultivation of opium –remain at the forefront of his thinking with respect to this incredibly complex, yet timely, relationship. A new foreign policy in Afghanistan may hurt Iraq but will do much to provide stability to Afghanistan. As the attacks of September 11th 2001 so persuasively demonstrated, an instable and fanatic Afghanistan is bad for America as well as the rest of the world. references Armstrong, A., & Rubin, B. (2003). Regional Issues in the Reconstruction of Afghanistan. World Policy Journal. 2:3 12-69. Afghanistan. (200). CIA World Fact Book. Last Accessed July 19 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/AF.html Cockburn, A. (1998). Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press. New York: Verso Publisher. Gallacher, A. Obamas new Afghan strategy. BBC News. Last Accessed July 19 2009.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7896173.stm Goodhand, J (2004). Frontiers and Wars: the Opium Economy in Afghanistan. Journal of Agrarian Change, 5:2, 191-216. Hobbes, T. (1994). Leviathan. London: Hackett Publishing. Loyn, D. (2009). Obama strategy focus of Afghan talks. BBC News. Last Accessed July 19 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7973282.stm Malloch-Brown, M (2008). Opium production in Afghanistan. British Medical Journal, 336, 972-973. Paris, R (2006). NATOs Choice in Afghanistan: go big or go home. Policy Options, 35-43. Paul, T.V. (2005). Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy. International Security, 30(2), 5-41. The Great Gas Game: Who will run Caspian natural gas through Afghanistan? (2001). Christian Science Monitor. October 25, 2001. United States Government. (2008) EIA Development Report. Last Accessed July 19 2009. Available http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Caspian/pdf.pdf Read More