The United Nations, the United States, the Afghan government, and many other countries and entities have been very busy right now in making, or paving way for, a reconciliation plan with the Taliban that is likely to be announced at an important international forum: the London conference for Afghanistan, on Thursday, Jan. 28.
For his part, the U.N. special representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide, ‘towards a first step to opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group, sought the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists,’ The New York Times reported on Jan. 24. (The U.N. has now removed names of five former Taliban officials from the blacklist).
The next day, BBC reported that the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, ‘told Financial Times newspaper that there had been “enough fighting.”’ And that ‘political solution in all conflicts was “inevitable.”’
Inevitably, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan had to outline a strategy for this whole reconciliation and reintegration plan. On Jan. 17, his spokesman, Waheed Omar, told a news conference that followers of the Taliban who defect will be offered jobs and security. Later, President Karzai himself provided more explanation and said: ‘Through a national reconciliation strategy, we want to absorb the Taliban fighters who don’t have links with Al Qaeda network and other terrorist groups.’
The response from the opposite side was clear: The Taliban militants launched a brazen attack on central Kabul, very close to the Palace where President Karzai was busy in preparing his reconciliation plan. The day-long standoff came to an end after three security men and two civilians were killed and 71 more injured. The attack was not very important in terms of casualties, but had much bitter impacts in terms of creating chaos and challenging the huge presence of the international and Afghan forces in a heavily fortified central part of the city.
Contrary to that, the response from a former jihadi warlord and currently wanted terrorist leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was softer and inviting. Instead of launching an armed attack, he released a taped statement in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, he outlined a roadmap for political reconciliation. President Karzai has included one of Hekmatyar’s former party members, Abdul Hadi Arghandiwal, in his new cabinet which may help the two to come close.
As the past 8 years’ war proved that fighting only brings more destruction and frustration, and in the particular case of Afghanistan it only helped the insurgents to grow and expand, the entire world is now suggesting for the peace talks with the insurgents. But a huge problem still remains at place: the lack of trust among the involved parties. Though the United States, Pakistan and Iran are the main partners of the conflict, Saudi Arabia, China, India and many other countries may also have their shares. And for now, it is clear that the United States is not going to trust on Pakistan, while Pakistan will never trust on Afghanistan and India. The same is true between Iran and the United States, between Pakistan and Iran, between India and China, and the rest.
The Taliban have their own reservations about this plan. Their utmost demand is the withdrawal of the international troops, while the international community is offering reconciliation amid sending more troops. Ostensibly the strategy is aimed to weaken the Taliban by deploying the additional troops and at the same time offering them an opportunity to reconcile with the Afghan government. That may work for people who are fighting for financial incentives but not for ideologically motivated core elements and the ones that are trained and supported from outside Afghanistan. There is a strong possibility that the Taliban who defect for money may switch sides back as soon as the international forces are out of the country or they think the Taliban are stronger again.
Taking this into consideration, many Afghans believe that this plan, and even this conference, is just another talk show that will not bring any change and will have not any new impacts on their lives and the situation in general in Afghanistan. Haji Naqeebullah Muhabbat Khan, a former jihadi commander and a tribal elder in eastern Afghan province, when asked about the moot, said:
‘During the last few years, several conferences were held for development of Afghanistan and huge amounts of money were pledged but most of it went back to the pockets of foreigners.’
This is a general concern about the money that comes to Afghanistan and much of it is taken back by the people who bring it. The sub-contracting system has made the construction work very complicated and the NGO business has underlined the government bitterly. This has now resulted into uncontrollable corruption in the government as well as the private sector. For Afghans, corruption is now a problem bigger and more dangerous than the insurgency.
For better and effective results, the international community, particularly the United States, has to make a realistic and long-term strategy that can work in the regional context. For that, the Afghan government needs to be fully supported and given more authority and independence in decision-making, especially when it comes to crucial issues like reconciliation, spending the aid money, and making security plans. The international community needs to work more with the neighboring countries that are part of the problem to pressurize them to adopt a positive approach towards the solution of the conflict and stop dreaming of conquering Afghanistan after the international forces leave.

The Taliban militants, leading the world’s bloodiest insurgency in recent history, have vowed to oust the international forces from Afghanistan in 2010, claiming that the year 2009 was very successful for them in terms of political and military achievements ‘against an arrogant western and American power.’

This was stated in a fresh statement posted on the movement’s website, www.alemarah.info (Pashto page). The statement, written in Pashto, and titled as ‘The year 2009: the Mujahedeen’s success and the invaders’ confusion,’ further says that everyone now is talking about reconciliation and peace talks with the Taliban which means a defeat to the Afghan government and its international supporters.

The statement refers to the heavy casualties inflicted on the international forces in 2009 and the low turnout in the August 2009 Afghan presidential and parliamentarian elections and hails them as their military and political successes. ‘This has put our enemy in a confusing and troubling situation and is now confronting internal conflicts and public opposition; has no solid and firm policy; on one side they talk about sending additional troops, but on the other side expresses the unreasonable opinion of their hurried withdrawal and on the same time demand for a political solution to the issue,’ the statement adds.

The statement also mentions the new Obama strategy, announced on Dec. 1, 2009, in which the US President promised to send additional 30,000 troops to change the momentum. ‘In response to this, the Leadership Council of the Islamic Emirate, in a letter, ordered the Mujahedeen across Afghanistan to launch new operations called ‘Nusrat’ (victory) from Saur (April),’ the statement continued.

The statement also gives figures of the casualties of 2009 which greatly differ from the figures given by the Afghan government and the NATO-led ISAF forces and independent sources. The Taliban statement puts the total number of the international forces’ deaths as 5587, but www.icasualties.org, a website that tracks military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, reported the total number of international forces’ deaths in 2009 as 506, of them 310 deaths were Americans, double than the deaths occurred in 2008. The Taliban statement says that 7254 Afghan soldiers were killed in 2009 and puts the Taliban fighters’ casualties only as 540. There is no independent source that could give the accurate numbers of the casualties of the Afghan soldiers and police, as well as the Taliban fighters. However, these figures greatly differ than those given by the Afghan officials in press releases.

At the end of the statement, the Taliban have repeated their determination to step up the attacks further in 2010, which, according to their claim, will eventually force the international troops out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan in 2010: challenges and expectations.

First of all, a warm welcome to 2010 with hopes for peace and stability! This year is crucial for Afghanistan in many ways: the insurgency has expanded its presence to nearly every corner of the country and the perpetrators have vowed to carry it on with much more force; the international community has promised a long term commitment and the United States is focusing to change the momentum of the insurgents with a troop surge and several other programs, such as the expansion of a secretive commando operation which will target ‘the most lethal insurgent groups;’ an effective reconciliation and reintegration process is recommended and voiced for from most of the influential stakeholders; and the new-in-process Afghan government is expected internationally to crackdown on the most despicable problem of the country: corruption.

The additional 30,000 American troops along with the 7000 NATO soldiers to arrive next year while President Hamid Karzai has introduced his not-so-new cabinet to the Wolesi Jirga (Parliament). On the opposite side, the insurgents killed an American soldier in the south of the country on Dec. 27 confirmed by a NATO-led ISAF press release on Dec. 28. This new death, according to AFP, doubled the US casualties in 2009.

‘The death takes this year’s international military casualties in Afghanistan to 506. Of those deaths, 310 have been Americans. That figure compares with a total of 155 Americans for 2008. The total number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan in 2008 was 295’ (506 in 2009).

The most important point for 2010 is a hope of victory on both sides. It was not only President Obama’s Dec. 1 strategy that promised to turn the situation in favor of the international forces in next 18 months, but a NATO official even warned that a shadow Taliban government is in place if the international community failed this year. Quoted by Reuters, this senior NATO official said, ‘Time is running out. We’ve got about a year to prove that our strategy can actually work. The Taliban has shadow governors in 33 out of 34 provinces.’

He was also quoted to have said that the reason behind this was a weak government (we are witnesses of this): ‘Where the government is weak, the enemy is strong.’ ‘He also said international development ‘has not met the expectations of the people’ and that the ‘Taliban have an incredible ability to sustain themselves.’ This is an alarming situation for the Afghan government as well as the international community.

So growth in the insurgency, reconciliation with the reconcilable elements, combating corruption, and more effective efforts for capacity building on all levels are the main challenges that the Afghan government and the international community are facing together. And unfortunately, after 8 years lost, we have only one year (2010) now. By no means should we loss this chance.