A timetable for withdrawal: the only way to win the war in Afghanistan?
(B2 / analysis) After the bombardment of Kunduz, an “unacceptable” bombardment according to several EU foreign ministers, it is perhaps necessary to start a debate on the Western military presence in Afghanistan. Presence which must still last for many years, regularly remind the main European leaders
We will also have to break with something unsaid in Afghanistan: we are at war. What happened in Kunduz is not a blunder, it's war. Where there are dead, not only the Taliban or the rebels but also our soldiers and civilians caught in the crossfire, or who support one side or the other. It's inevitable... The question shouldn't really be there. But why this war. For what purpose. And until when?
'We are at war'
No need to beat around the bush and use other words, as the French did some time ago and as the Germans or the Italians seem to continue to do, the war is very present. And all the countries – or almost – of the European Union are committed. The armies of EU Member States provide as many men to IFAS as the United States! Just under 30 men. If we take 000 rotations per year as a factor, the EU countries will have sent nearly 3 men to the region in 100.
This war is not without damage, military
European military losses are far from negligible. According to the website icasualties, the armies of the EU have suffered, since the beginning of the intervention, 407 dead (half of them British), that is to say one third of the total losses or half of the US losses during the same period. The number of injured is not given. But it is about three times more numerous than the number of deceased. On the US side, there were indeed 2400 seriously injured on September 10, 2009 (that is to say, not returned to combat after 72 hours) for just over 800 dead. And, on the British side, there are 822 wounded, 250 of them serious, as well as nearly 2000 hospitalizations for illness or injury not related to combat, for just over 200 dead (as of August 15, 2009). This shows the weight of the veterans of Afghanistan in the future. Not to mention the ravages of drugs which remain a taboo. The leaders of the armies know it well who repatriate, discreetly, soldiers who have become addicted
Civilian casualties are inevitable
A war is not fought in socks. When there are well-trained and heavily armed soldiers, as well as bombers in action, a priori, there will be damage. Dead and wounded. Not just soldiers. But also civilians. And mechanical burrs. Asking soldiers to be killed without reacting is rather inadequate and inconsistent. This war does not fail in these principles. The proportion of civilians killed for those of the military and the rebels seems to remain overall in the range of 1 in 10. The political leaders who woke up the day after Kunduz proclaiming their refusal of the unacceptable do not therefore seem to me really very consistent .
This war seeks a goal
At first, it was the hunt for terrorists (an objective still regularly invoked to justify the commitment), then the stabilization of the country, the fight against drugs and the restoration of the (lawful) state, more generally of " our security", as German Chancellor Angela Merkel reminded us, considering that the German military presence is “in the urgent interest of the security of our country. (...) "The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were organized from an Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. (...) The terror came from there and not the other way around" .
But is it really with 100.000 over-armed men and keeping them in the country for several years that we are restoring the rule of law, hunting down terrorists, fighting drugs and strengthening "our security? "? Why not intervene in Sudan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea… Countries which also threaten our security. To ask the question is already to answer it.
Isn't the objective of this war then rather the stabilization of an allied government (a sort of application of the extra-territorial solidarity clause) and the fight against radical Islamism. In this, this war then resembles, if not in its precise objectives, at least in its foundations and even in its means, the war waged by the USSR twenty years ago precisely in Afghanistan. And this modern "crusade" entails a series of problems: political - Islam being the religion of Afghanistan, the war targets part of the population - legal and ethical: this is not quite the mandate given by the United Nations. We are not aiming for the maintenance of peace, nor the return to peace. But the elimination of an opponent.
The failure of the headlong rush
The presence "for years" seems a headlong rush as much as a cause of failure in the long term. Indeed, the accumulated weight of military losses, of the cost of the operation (direct and indirect), all the more difficult to assume as the economic and budgetary crisis is making its effects felt, and the absence of justification capable of leading to the public support is growing. Despite all NATO communication efforts. And if “blunders” like those of Kunduz multiply, our democracies will not endure this war for very long. They can end up leading to a rupture between opinions and their governments. Which would be the worst...
The current strategy is a dead end
In the coming months will be the test of truth. Everyone recognizes it. But the current strategy, even reviewed and corrected by General McCrystal, does not seem to offer a better future within reach. Recognizing that for eight years, this war has been badly started, badly deployed, and that many mistakes have been made, is not enough. Regaining the confidence of the Afghan population just with a few less bombardments and two or three more civil-military actions seems difficult.
scheduled withdrawal
The solution – contrary to what some US soldiers advocate – is it not then not to increase the troops but to reduce them. And announce it. With a proven withdrawal schedule, province by province.
1) Tactically, the enemy will be offered fewer holds, fewer possibilities of action. And we will have more troops available for the main purpose that should guide them: to train and assist the Afghan army. The operation will cost less in human lives and financially, therefore will be sustainable.
2) Having a timetable for withdrawal means that there is a necessary assumption by the Afghans of their destiny after the deadline. Afghanizing the conflict is not just about training a few thousand more police and soldiers, it also means giving back to the Afghans tactical mastery and the keys to their country. At their own risk!
3) It is also removing an argument for rebellion. The withdrawal of "foreign troops" no longer becomes the justification for "their" war. Incidentally, this obliges the "enemy" to control more territories, thus being able to be the victim of reactions and counter-attacks, from the Afghans themselves.
4) The exit strategy is all the more necessary since between now and 2010-12, several large contingents should leave Afghanistan: Canada and the Netherlands in particular (1), even Germany (if the Bundestag refuses to vote to extend the mission, the CSU conservatives' call for a withdrawal timetable is not a sign to be ignored). Better an organized and programmed withdrawal than a dispersed withdrawal, which would look like a stampede...
This is not a good solution - I am aware of it -, the least bad solution...
(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)