The war in Afghanistan has taken on numerous facets. The Canadians are fighting an insurgency, the Americans a drug war, and Pakistan a border war. What about the Afghans? Looks like they might be considering an all out war with Pakistan. Last December Pakistan annnounced a plan for putting razorwire and mines along the border. Most Afghani leaders suspect Pakistan is fomenting insurgency in their country. Last weekend Afghani elders held a series of “peace” jirga in preparation for regional talks on the border issue. But the rhetoric at the jirga sounded anything but peaceful. Haji Fida Mohammed, an Achakzai tribal elder from Spin Boldak, gave a fiery speech greeted with applause:
If this peace jirga fails, all tribes must sit together, gather their soldiers and take an oath to fight against Pakistan… We are the grandchildren of Ahmed Shah and Mirwais Khan ... We will fight with them. We never went anywhere to interfere with our neighbours’ internal affairs—but they interfere with us.
The Canadian government thinks Afghanistan can be fixed by 2011. If interstate fighting breaks out between Afghanistan and Pakistan the UN could be joining NATO in the former stomping grounds of the Taliban. Ironically, Pakistan is the second largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. That could get complex.
Anyways, here is my question: If the UN stepped in, what would the NATO nations do?
a) Thank the gods for an excuse to bail out of Afghanistan
b) Continue conducting their various missions under limited mandates simultaneously
c) Other (explain in comments)
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Putting together the pieces behind the Iron Curtain
- » Victory is just around the corner?
COMMENTS / 9 COMMENTS
Curzon added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 8:51 amThat would be “Gods.”
Probably a mix of both: the public will want out, the governments will stay in, but probably at a limited or reduced level, and the US will get all the blame, just like many blame Washington (not the Soviets) for the rise of the Taliban.
Lexington Green added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 2:03 pmEvery government would bail out and not look back except the USA, if Bush is still president. If Hillary is president by then, we’ll pull out too.
hshvonhoffman added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 3:38 pmThe UN is so weak currently that it can’t force the Sudanese to let them place UN blue helmets in Darfur and it relies increasingly on organizations like NATO for logistical and other types of support. It is true that many of the countries involved in this debacle would like to get out, but this is the heart of the “war on terror” and is the place where the most dangerous elements of these organizations still operate. Pakistan is the real problem, or should I say the lack of will in Pakistan, and should be treated as such. Until there is a concerted effort by the Pakistanis to control all regions of their country and to stop meddling in the affairs of their neighbors these current problems will continue to exist. Pakistan is on a slippery edge and if President Musharref is deposed all bets are off.
TDL added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 4:57 pmThe NATO countries will stay in. The theory of intervention is at risk of losing credibility if NATO pulls out. I agree with Curzon, the public will want out, but the governments will stay. If Hillary is president, she will aggressively prosecute any war the U.S. is involved in; war brings a lot of power to the executive and the Clinton’s have proven that only power matters to them, regardless of the consequences. In other words, I think Hillary would be a bloodthirsty president.
Regards,
TDL
Jay@soob added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 6:58 pmI think we’d see the NATO states generally pull out, with the exception of the US and Britain. Further, I’d say such a “defeat” would deal a pretty severe blow to the cohesion of NATO.
Best case scenario might be UN forces policing/rebuilding (with heavy reliance on African Union troops) while NATO forces overtly battle Taliban elements.
nykrindc added these pithy words on 01 Feb 07 at 11:02 pmNATO: Thank the gods for an excuse to bail out of Afghanistan
That said, isn’t the real reason for Afghan anger at Pakistan’s border fence proposal that it is seen as an attempt by Pakistan to predetermine the outcome of any future negotiations on the Durand Line, which Afghan Pashtuns have never really accepted as demarcating the border of Pasthunistan?
Curzon added these pithy words on 02 Feb 07 at 3:27 amThank you nykrindc, I learn something new everyday.
Herr Goebbels added these pithy words on 02 Feb 07 at 3:45 amI have the feeling that a UN intervention would not occur, even if hostilities break out between Afghanistan and Pakistan the UN simply does not have the logistical resources to intervene.
Although that being said if the NATO countries were to back a UN mission and contribute the resources needed to conduct it support for the Afghan mission on the homefront would probably improve.
Seems as if the future of these kinds of interventions will belong to regional blocs such as NATO because as it was mentioned by hsvonhoffman the UN can barely organize a Darfur mission.
Michael added these pithy words on 02 Feb 07 at 5:33 pmI have to go with Herr Goebbels on this one. UN intervention means upsetting one of its major suppliers; two if you consider that the US is up to ITS eyeballs with both Afganistan and Pakistan! Only way I would see this turning out differently would be if
a) we were invited to butt out of Afganistan and other countries outvoted Pakistan or
b) we were sophisticated enough to turn this into an opportunity to get more help in the region and throw our weight (and maybe NATO’s as well) behind it.Neither seems real likely.
