Everyone who has survived this decade will never forget the 9/11, Afghan war and Iraqi invasion. A comparison between the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq is possible because both invasions were done primarily by the US, under war on terror and against a Muslim country where it received a lot of resistance.
Both the wars are far from being won. However, withdrawal is possible from Iraq, whereas Afghanistan still needs time. Though the situation seems largely alike, the ground reality is far from comparable.“Afghanistan is a much harder, mountainous terrain with extreme weathers and inaccessible pockets,” says Saleem Safi, a political analyst for AVT Khyber. “In Iraq, there were no bordering tribal areas where the militants could escape and seek refuge.”The Afghan invasion came as a result of the 9/11 attacks, at a time when the US public was angry and insecure. Majority in the US thought Afghanistan should be attacked. Yet when the Iraqi invasion was being planned, the political landscape was different. Notions about the complexity of Afghan intrusion and lack of an outright victory were common knowledge by then.The legitimacy of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, though it was not approved by the UNSC, relied on the argument that it was collective self-defence under Article 51 of UN Charter and not a war of aggression.Some experts argued that the 2003 invasion on Iraq was a pre-emptive strike to prevent future attacks but the claims fizzled out when no WMDs were eventually discovered.“The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a “war of choice” and unjustified,” says Dr Daniel N. Nelson, a Senior Fellow at the Centre for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
“The action to oust the Taliban regime from Afghanistan was, instead, entirely justified since the Taliban had given a safe haven and support to those who plotted and implemented a direct attack against the United States.” A 2003 CBS poll indicated that 64percent Americans consented to an armed crackdown in Iraq, but 63pc wanted a political solution instead of entering a war. More than half of these believed that terror threat to the US will increase after an Iraqi invasion. Even traditional US allies like France, Germany, New Zealand and Canada opposed the war, arguing that the presence of WMDs in Iraq is unproven by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic).“The two countries are very dissimilar in socio-economic, historical, cultural, and geographic terms. Taliban and their extremist allies wanting to regain power in Afghanistan planned, supported, or endorsed attacks throughout the world (Bali, Madrid, London, and elsewhere including Pakistan)” explains Dr Nelson “Those differences go a long way towards explaining why “pulling out” of Afghanistan will not happen soon.”“The attention on Afghanistan, though perhaps not the number of troops will increase,” says Brigadier Mehmood Shah, a defence and Afghanistan expert. “Since Iraq was not a fulfilling mission, the target in Afghanistan is not merely direct involvement but also building up on diplomatic influence.”There is also a division of opinion regarding the American ‘victory’ in Iraq. “The American objective to remove Saddam was fulfilled,” says the political analyst Ejaz Haider. “However, the war was lost in terms of exchequer, devastation and the democratic model US wanted to implement there in order to re-engineer the Middle East politically.””The US is not abandoning Iraq and will continue to support an elected government with political, economic and military resources. This continuing support is justified given the originally unjustified nature of the US invasion” says Dr Nelson.“In Obama’s West point speech, there is an 18 months deadline to resolve Afghanistan,” says Ejaz Haider. “However, how many troops will remain in Afghanistan, will they be present on field or in garrisons and carry air strikes, is unknown yet.Another constraint in Afghanistan is that the war is being fought by NATO. The UK and Germans have other priorities, different concerns and Afghan leadership choices. In Iraq, only US and the UK were fighting. The costs of the Iraq war were borne by US primarily, unlike Afghanistan. The Iraqi invasion cost was much higher and hurt the recession-hit Americans more. In 2008 a Washington Post piece declared about Iraq: “You can’t spend $3 trillion on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.”The death toll in Iraq was also higher than that in Afghanistan. According to an organization called Global security, some 4300 American troops died and 30,000 were injured, compared to just 1200 in Afghanistan.The situation in Afghanistan is far from resolved at the moment. The best position would have been to destroy the al Qaeda control centres in Afghanistan through aerial attacks and not mingle in the country politically. But now that the US is there, it will have to stay. Otherwise it might leave behind an unstable Afghanistan with Taliban stronger than before.This piece was first published in The News.
“The action to oust the Taliban regime from Afghanistan was, instead, entirely justified since the Taliban had given a safe haven and support to those who plotted and implemented a direct attack against the United States.” A 2003 CBS poll indicated that 64percent Americans consented to an armed crackdown in Iraq, but 63pc wanted a political solution instead of entering a war. More than half of these believed that terror threat to the US will increase after an Iraqi invasion. Even traditional US allies like France, Germany, New Zealand and Canada opposed the war, arguing that the presence of WMDs in Iraq is unproven by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic).“The two countries are very dissimilar in socio-economic, historical, cultural, and geographic terms. Taliban and their extremist allies wanting to regain power in Afghanistan planned, supported, or endorsed attacks throughout the world (Bali, Madrid, London, and elsewhere including Pakistan)” explains Dr Nelson “Those differences go a long way towards explaining why “pulling out” of Afghanistan will not happen soon.”“The attention on Afghanistan, though perhaps not the number of troops will increase,” says Brigadier Mehmood Shah, a defence and Afghanistan expert. “Since Iraq was not a fulfilling mission, the target in Afghanistan is not merely direct involvement but also building up on diplomatic influence.”There is also a division of opinion regarding the American ‘victory’ in Iraq. “The American objective to remove Saddam was fulfilled,” says the political analyst Ejaz Haider. “However, the war was lost in terms of exchequer, devastation and the democratic model US wanted to implement there in order to re-engineer the Middle East politically.””The US is not abandoning Iraq and will continue to support an elected government with political, economic and military resources. This continuing support is justified given the originally unjustified nature of the US invasion” says Dr Nelson.“In Obama’s West point speech, there is an 18 months deadline to resolve Afghanistan,” says Ejaz Haider. “However, how many troops will remain in Afghanistan, will they be present on field or in garrisons and carry air strikes, is unknown yet.Another constraint in Afghanistan is that the war is being fought by NATO. The UK and Germans have other priorities, different concerns and Afghan leadership choices. In Iraq, only US and the UK were fighting. The costs of the Iraq war were borne by US primarily, unlike Afghanistan. The Iraqi invasion cost was much higher and hurt the recession-hit Americans more. In 2008 a Washington Post piece declared about Iraq: “You can’t spend $3 trillion on a failed war abroad and not feel the pain at home.”The death toll in Iraq was also higher than that in Afghanistan. According to an organization called Global security, some 4300 American troops died and 30,000 were injured, compared to just 1200 in Afghanistan.The situation in Afghanistan is far from resolved at the moment. The best position would have been to destroy the al Qaeda control centres in Afghanistan through aerial attacks and not mingle in the country politically. But now that the US is there, it will have to stay. Otherwise it might leave behind an unstable Afghanistan with Taliban stronger than before.This piece was first published in The News. 
No comments:
Post a Comment