Experts wrestle with crises in Afghanistan, Iran

Joshua Kucera 11/17/06

Experts attending the Middle East Institute's recent 60th Anniversary Annual Conference grappled with ways to reverse discouraging trends in Afghanistan and Iran.

The burgeoning Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is the direct result of the Pakistani government's courtship of Islamist groups, and the best hope for improvement is for Pakistan to return to civilian rule and for NATO to take a more aggressive role in Afghanistan, experts said during a panel discussion held in Washington on November 13.

Violence is increasing in all parts of Afghanistan, "not just the contested south and east," said Marvin Weinbaum, an Afghanistan expert at the Middle East Institute. Poppy cultivation in the country is setting records. Meanwhile, the leadership of President Hamid Karzai and the protection afforded by the international troops in Afghanistan are increasingly suspect, Weinbaum added. But the root of the problem is Pakistan, he maintained. "Unless Pakistan's policies change it will be impossible to turn the tide of the insurgency" in Afghanistan, Weinbaum said.

"If there's a central front in the war on terrorism, it's Pakistan," James Dobbins, a scholar at the RAND Corporation, added during the panel, titled "Afghanistan, Pakistan and Regional Stability."

For decades Pakistan has been creating a complex "stew" of intertwined interests. "The intimacy of these relationships between Kashmiri groups, the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISI [Pakistani intelligence] and others has been clear for a very long time," said Bruce Riedel, a former official at the National Security Council, and now a scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Over the last several decades military-led governments in Pakistan, including the incumbent administration of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, have been especially susceptible to this "stew." The reason, Riedel said, is that military rulers have tended to sublimate every other national goal to Pakistan's conflict with India, which leads to unsavory alliances with Kashmiri Islamists and the other groups.

Taliban leadership shuras, or councils, operate in Quetta, near Miranshah and possibly elsewhere on the Pakistan side of the shared border with Afghanistan, said Steve Coll, author of Ghost Wars, a recent history of Afghanistan. The Pakistani Army does not want to install the Taliban in power again, but believes its own interests are served by stirring up Pashtun nationalism in Afghanistan, Coll said. He added that even if the Pakistani Army wanted to remove the Taliban from its border areas, the army's poor record on counterinsurgency suggests that it would be hard-pressed to do so.

The Taliban has also succeeded in reviving its fortunes because it has followed through on its promises, unlike the government in Kabul, or the international forces in Afghanistan, Riedel said. Mullah Omar, the Taliban's leader, has adroitly run the insurgency. "As long as NATO is there, the Taliban can't take control of Kabul, Kandahar or other major cities. But that's not their goal," he said.

"His [Mullah Omar's] goal is the same as every classic guerilla leader: to survive in the countryside and gradually wear down the resistance and will of his enemies," Riedel said.

The upcoming NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, is a prime chance to get more troops dedicated to Afghanistan, he said, adding that the United States also needs to increase its own commitment. Washington has budgeted $1.2 billion for Afghanistan in the 2007 budget. "That's way too little to achieve what's necessary," he said.

Riedel also recommended re-engaging India to help quell the insurgency in Afghanistan. India, which has traditionally taken an active role in Afghanistan, has been shut out lately because Washington has not wanted to antagonize Pakistan. "That [talking with India] will cause problems with Pakistan, but the time to talk softly with Pakistan is over," Riedel said.

The conference also touched on Iran, in a panel called "The International Community and Iran." The panelists agreed that an American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was now less likely that the Democrats were poised to take control of the US Congress following the legislative elections of early November. The results show that "the appetite for war is clearly limited in this country," said Barbara Slavin, a correspondent for USA Today who is writing a book on US-Iran relations.

Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iran expert at Rutgers University, said he felt the United States can't merely conduct "surgical strikes" on Iranian nuclear facilities, as that would fail to achieve the goal of destroying the nuclear program. "The Democrats are good for sanctions, not for war," Amirahmadi said.

The panelists also agreed that while the desire for significant government reform remains high among the Iranian people, political forces most closely associated with "reform," including former president Mohammed Khatami, have lost credibility. "They made reform an intellectual, rather than a popular movement," Amirahmadi said.

Editor's Note: Joshua Kucera is a Washington, DC,-based freelance writer who specializes in security issues in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Middle East.

Posted November 17, 2006 © Eurasianet