Ultimate exit strategy/US to outline new Afghan strategy/Iran to attend Afghan meet

Ultimate exit strategy
By Karl F. Inderfurth and James Dobbins
Copyright by The International Herald Tribune
Published: March 26, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/26/opinion/edinderfurth.php


Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described the upcoming high-level conference on Afghanistan at The Hague as a "big-tent meeting, with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan." With the situation in that country growing more precarious by the day, those attending this meeting must also think big.

Henry Kissinger already is. "Afghanistan is almost the archetypal international problem requiring a multilateral solution for the emergence of a political framework," he recently wrote in the International Herald Tribune. "In the 19th century, formal neutrality was sometimes negotiated to impose a standstill on interventions in and from strategically located countries."

"Is it possible," he asked, "to devise a modern equivalent?"

The answer is yes.

Those gathering under the "big tent" should start laying the groundwork for establishing Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state. Harkening back to the Congress of Vienna in 1815, this approach has been successful in neutralizing regional and great power rivalries that have threatened smaller, more vulnerable states. Switzerland and Austria are two examples.

Afghanistan is in this category today. Landlocked and resource-poor, the country is at risk of unwelcome external influences. Predatory neighbors have been a fact of life for the Afghan state throughout most of its history. When its neighbors perceived a common interest in a peaceful Afghanistan, it was at peace. When they did not, it was at war.

Afghanistan may be a hard country to occupy, as the British discovered in the 19th century and the Russians in the 20th, but it is an easy one to destabilize. At present it is being destabilized by multiple insurgencies organized, directed and supplied from sanctuaries across the border in Pakistan.

During its periods of relative tranquility, Afghanistan operated as a buffer state, in the 19th century between the British and Russian empires, and through much of the 20th between the Soviet and U.S. spheres of influence. Sustained peace in Afghanistan will require the recreation of such an equilibrium.

Kissinger proposed that a working group of Afghanistan's neighbors, India and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council be established to begin this process. This is an appropriate grouping, with the addition of Afghanistan, and it should be convened under the auspices of the U.N. secretary general.

The goal would be a multilateral accord that establishes principles and guarantees for Afghanistan's long-term status, to include agreements:

- by all the parties to declare Afghanistan a permanently neutral country;

- by Afghanistan not to permit its territory to again become a haven for terrorist activities or to be used against the interests of any of its neighbors;

- by Afghanistan's neighbors and near-neighbors not to interfere in Afghanistan's internal affairs or to allow their territory to be used against Afghanistan;

- by Afghanistan and Pakistan to recognize their common border (the Durand Line of 1893 is still in dispute);

- by all other parties to guarantee that border, including by a U.N.-sponsored monitoring mission, if requested by the Afghan government;

- by all parties to establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan, and

- by the United States and its NATO allies to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan once these other provisions had been implemented.

Such a package would give all the participants something of value. Pakistan would secure Afghan recognition of its border and assurances that India would not be allowed to use Afghan territory to pressure or destabilize Pakistan's volatile border regions.

India would be free to pursue normal relations with Kabul, including direct trade and commercial ties.

Iran would receive assurances that the international community recognizes its legitimate interests in Afghanistan and that the U.S. military presence on its eastern border is not permanent.

The United States and its allies would be able to depart, leaving behind a society at peace with itself and its neighbors.

Of greatest value would be the benefits for Afghanistan itself. It would gain an end to cross border infiltration and attacks, allowing it to pay full attention to rebuilding the country. Moreover, its hope of emerging as a regional crossroads for trade and commerce — a 21st century "Silk Road" — could be realized.

Diplomacy of this sort is no short term alternative to NATO's prosecuting a more effective counterinsurgency campaign inside Afghanistan.

More Western troops and economic assistance, more sophisticated military tactics and greater civilian capacity will be needed to turn the tide that is currently running against NATO and the democratically based government in Kabul.

In the longer term, however, Afghanistan will be able to secure its territory and population only with the active collaboration of its more powerful neighbors. Beginning now to build such a consensus is the ultimate Western exit strategy and the end state for Afghanistan that we should seek.

Karl F. Inderfurth, professor of international affairs at George Washington University, was the U.S. representative to the U.N.-sponsored "6 plus 2" talks on Afghanistan from 1997-2001. James Dobbins, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand Corp., was the Bush administration's first special envoy for Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.









US to outline new Afghan strategy
By Demetri Sevastopulo and Daniel Dombey in Washington
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Published: March 23 2009 12:55 | Last updated: March 23 2009 18:34
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d65b7142-17a5-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac.html


The White House will this week unveil a new Afghanistan strategy that will stress the need for tackling extremists operating inside Pakistan, reconciliation efforts with some Taliban, and a lowering of expectations for what can be achieved in the war-torn country.

President Barack Obama at the weekend stressed that his focus was ensuring that al-Qaeda could not attack the US. He said Washington needed a “comprehensive” approach that included building the Afghan economy, improving diplomatic efforts with Pakistan, and employing a regional approach.

“What we can’t do is think that just a military approach in Afghanistan is going to be able to solve our problems. So what we’re looking for is a comprehensive strategy. And there’s got to be an exit strategy. There’s got to be a sense that this is not perpetual drift,” said Mr Obama.

During the presidential campaign Mr Obama pledged to put more focus on Afghanistan, which has seen a significant rise in violence over the past two years, particularly as militants increasingly operate from safe havens inside Pakistan. His new strategy is partly the product of a series of military reviews started during the Bush administration.

James Shinn, a former top Bush administration defence official who co-authored one of the reviews, said Mr Obama had several big decisions to make, including how to “fit the Afghan and Pakistan pieces together”.

“Reconciliation of some Taliban is good tactics – but the terms set by Kabul have to be symmetrical with those set by Islamabad on the other side of the Durand Line,” said Mr Shinn, referring to the tribal belt along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Joe Biden, US vice-president, recently said 70 per cent of Taliban insurgents were just guns for hire, suggesting that the US could have success peeling them away from the insurgency. Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation, said that, while the US would attempt to co-opt some Taliban, US officials had concluded that a “grand bargain” was not feasible.

One western diplomat added that another complicated question was whether the US would agree to deals if, for example, that meant tough Islamist laws and the possible closure of girls’ schools, as has occurred with peace deals in Pakistan. But he added: “This is a national security issue first.”

Mr Shinn said another key issue for Mr Obama was how to maintain multilateral support, by working out “who does what, for how long, and – crucially – who fights and who pays?”

Some officials have pushed to double the size of the Afghan army and police to about 400,000. But Washington has had difficulty persuading allies to fund even the current planned expansion of the Afghan army to 134,000 at a cost of roughly $17bn (€13bn, £12bn) over five years. The willingness of Nato to provide additional funds – instead of additional troops – may be tested when Mr Obama visits Europe next month.

James Steinberg, deputy secretary of state, on Monday revealed another part of the strategy, by urging India to support Pakistani efforts to combat militants. The Pentagon has been concerned that higher tensions between India and Pakistan following the Mumbai bombings could prompt Islamabad to divert soldiers from fighting militants to the border area with India.

Mr Shinn said the most difficult issue resolved around the four variables – objectives, resources, methods and time – in the Afghan strategy.

“My guess is that they [the Obama administration] will be reluctant to dial down the objectives much, if at all, and they will probably commit a few more combat brigades, but not a whole lot – which means they will have to rely on superior methods to achieve the objectives without slipping things way out in time.”

While Mr Obama is close to revealing his new strategy, some observers say his administration has been split over whether to pursue a “minimalist” approach to Afghanistan.

“The minimalists [say] get in, send some more troops, try and calm things down so we can get out. That was sort of the pre-surge strategy in Iraq,” John McCain, the Arizona senator who lost the presidency to Mr Obama, told the Financial Times.

“[Then] there is the group that realises that there has to be an overall comprehensive counter-insurgency strategy, not a counter-terrorism strategy.”

Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief who also served in the Bush administration, in January made clear where he stood when he said “our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the US and our allies”. Then, last week, he warned that an “open-ended” troop commitment might make Afghanistan think the US was “part of their problem”.

Mr Obama recently stressed that he would reject the idea of pushing for a “Jeffersonian democracy”. But beyond that, diplomats say the administration has been split. Mr Biden has been championing a minimalist approach to avoid the US being sucked into an interminable conflict, while Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, has pushed for more expansive goals.







Iran to attend Afghan meet
© Reuters Limited
March 26, 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58ee194a-19fc-11de-9f91-0000779fd2ac.html


Tehran, March 26 - Iran said on Thursday it would attend a UN conference on the future of Afghanistan which was proposed by Tehran’s old foe the United States and called for a regional solution to the ”crisis”.

But Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said Iran had yet to decide who to send to next Tuesday’s international meeting in The Hague, which will be attended by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and delegates from more than 80 countries.

News of Iran’s participation is likely to be welcomed by the new US administration of President Barack Obama, who has offered a ”new beginning” of diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic on a range of issues.

In an overture to Tehran, Mrs Clinton said earlier this month Iran would be invited to the meeting to discuss the future of Afghanistan as it battles a growing Islamist Taliban insurgency.

Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic ties for three decades and are now at odds over Tehran’s nuclear work.

But analysts say they share an interest in ensuring a stable Afghanistan, where violence is at its highest level since the 2001 US-led invasion.

”Iran will participate,” Mr Qashqavi said. ”The level of participation is not clear.”

Mrs Clinton is expected to provide details of a review of US strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is set to be released before the conference in the Dutch city.

Iran has said it was ready to help stabilise Afghanistan and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted as saying a regional solution was needed.

Mr Obama last month ordered the deployment of 17,000 extra US troops to the country. Iran has often called for US forces to leave the region, saying they are making the situation worse.

”We believe that a regional solution should be found for the Afghanistan crisis,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mr Mottaki as saying during a visit to Brazil.

”Iran’s goal in the region is to help peace, stability and calm which is necessary for the region’s progress,” he said.

Mr Mottaki said earlier in March the United States was failing in Afghanistan and should recognise a new approach was needed.

Mr Qashqavi said Iran would also attend a separate meeting on Afghanistan in Moscow this week.

In a major shift from the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush, who sought to isolate Tehran over nuclear work the West suspects is aimed at making bombs, Mr Obama has offered to extend a hand of peace to Iran if ”it unclenches its fist”.

Last week, in a televised address released to Middle East broadcasters, Mr Obama made his warmest offer yet of a fresh start in relations with Iran.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday he had so far seen no change in US behaviour but Tehran would respond to any real policy shift by Washington.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for peaceful power purposes.