THE “GREAT GAME” IN THE 21ST CENTURY – WHAT HAS THE INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN ACHIEVED?

“Afghanistan is a poor country and it is surprising how little the international community has dug into its pockets. The United States and the United Kingdom have done a lot.
 Where are the Arab states?”
– Richard Perle, Chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board (2001-03)

 Five years after the U.S.-led “Operation Enduring Freedom” invasion of Afghanistan, fighting continues. Some major aims of the initial action launched one month after 9/11, have yet to be achieved in a conflict largely overshadowed by events in Iraq.

 Questions abound. For example: Is there any prospect of long-term benefits in the Central Asian country, which was central to the “Great Game” of the 19th century which pitted the British Empire against Tsarist Russia for regional supremacy?

 The session was in the form of a tribunal, with Norine MacDonald, President of the Senlis Council-Security and Development Policy Group in Afghanistan, leading the “prosecution”. Richard Perle, chairman of the U.S. Defense Policy Board at the time of the invasion in 2001, led the “defense”.

 MacDonald opened with a bleak picture of unremitting poverty, a flourishing poppy trade accounting for 92 percent of world opium in 2006, the Taliban controlling entire districts and forming bases to foment global Jihad, and safe-havens in Pakistan for Taliban leaders.

 “The international community is forced to use air strikes – 2,600 since June 2006 – destroying villages, international aid to some areas has stopped and there are multi-million-dollar U.S. bases with Burger King restaurants, while babies are starving nearby.”

 “We had a chance to stand with the people of Afghanistan against the War on Terror. We cannot create an empty desert and call it peace,” MacDonald said.

 The first witness was Dr. Abdullah, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister until 2004. He was asked by Perle if life would have been better for Afghanistan if the Taliban had remained in power and “continued to operate as a sanctuary for an international global Jihadist movement”.

 “No”, said Abdullah. “I have lived under those circumstances and lived in those areas. The Taliban had gone too far and 90 percent of Afghanistan was under their control.” The people welcomed the “foreign process” initially but “things could have been done much better”.

 Asked by MacDonald about present support for the Taliban, he said people in the south were caught in a situation where the Taliban was in control again. He said people were asking: “What is the difference between the Soviet Invasion (in 1979) and this invasion?”

 He said a “critical opportunity” was lost in 2001 when Taliban leaders went to Pakistan. The establishment in Pakistan worked with the allies in handing over leaders of Al-Qaeda but not of the Taliban.

 The next witness, Geydar Dzhemal, Chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia, said: “You can say a lot of negative things about the Taliban but they stopped rivalry between field commanders, eradicated crime and cut poppy production.”

 “The positive part of stabilising and improving the social situation was so unacceptable to the world community and there was a campaign to vilify the Taliban,” he said. “None of the issues raised justified an invasion.”

 Asked by Perle if the “improved” social situation included denying women an education, Dzhemal, said: “The Taliban had to apply strict and unpopular measures. You cannot see the logic of them as an outsider.” On further questioning, he said his answer to the question was ‘yes’.

 Asked if he knew which country (the United States) on September 10, 2001, was the largest source of humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, Dzhemal replied: “Even according to the logic of the United States there is no direct link with that event (9/11).”

 The next witness was Azmat Hayat Khan, Director of the Pakistan-based Area Study Centre for Russia, China and Central Asia.

 Asked if Pakistan was doing everything possible along its border with Afghanistan, he said: “We have about 80,000 troops on the border. Our army lost about 700 men in fighting insurgents. We never lost that number in the war with India. The regular army is blocking all known routes.”

 Summing up at the end of the questioning, Perle said: “The people of Afghanistan have suffered for a long time.”

 “I was in Afghanistan recently and saw a school now open after being closed under the Taliban. Afghanistan is a poor country and it is surprising how little the international community has dug into its pockets. The United States and the United Kingdom have done a lot.”

 “Where are the Arab states? They were happy to help after the Soviets left. Where are they today? If the international community were to abandon Afghanistan, things would be worse than ever.”

 The session ended with a poll of the audience on whether the international community had fulfilled the long-term objectives of “Operation Enduring Freedom”.

 There were four propositions: A) More time needed for success. B) The operation has failed. C) A change is needed. D) The international community is succeeding.

 Results. A) 6 votes B) 30 votes C) 4 votes D) zero votes.