Afghans Reluctant to Lose US Troops

Plans to reduce the United States troop presence in Afghanistan have sparked deeply contradictory reactions in the country.



On the one hand, Afghans, historically uncomfortable with the presence of foreign troops on their soil, are anxious to see the back of even a small proportion of the nearly 20,000 American soldiers. This is especially true following the furore set off last year by a media report that US interrogators had desecrated the Koran while questioning detainees in Guantanamo Bay.



Reports of prisoner abuse at Bagram Air Base and a widely distributed video of American troops burning the bodies of dead Taleban fighters have also sparked outrage.



Many complain about what they see as the arrogant, sometimes aggressive conduct of US soldiers in Kabul and elsewhere. Such behaviour has done little to win the hearts and minds of average Afghans.



But most people are also keenly aware that peace in Afghanistan remains fragile. They wonder whether Washington is beginning to lose interest in their country, and whether the expanded NATO force that is expected to assume responsibility for security in southern parts of the country is up to the task.



In December, the US Department of Defence confirmed that it would be reducing the number of troops deployed in Afghanistan by about 2,500, from 19,000 to 16,500. At the same time, the Pentagon said NATO would be sending an additional 6,000 soldiers to the country this year, including some 3,000 British forces and a 1,200-strong contingent from the Netherlands.



Some see the planned US-force reduction as a first step by Washington towards leaving Afghanistan altogether.



“If America once again forgets Afghanistan and abandons it to the internal and foreign wolves who are lying in wait, it will be a very great betrayal of the Afghan nation,” warned Habibullah Rafi, a political analyst and member of the Afghan Academy of Sciences.



“If America pulls out its troops, the Taleban will soon come back and Afghanistan will again become the nest of terrorism that it was in the past,” said Abdul Hafiz Mansoor, the former head of Afghan National Radio and TV and currently the editor of the Payam-e-Mujahed newspaper. “So it will be dangerous not only for Afghanistan, but for the entire region.”



There are no alternatives to the American forces, argues Mansoor. The Afghan National Army does not yet have the necessary capacity, and NATO forces have a different mandate altogether. “NATO is supposed to maintain peace and security,” he said. “They are not ready for combat.”



Mansoor voiced the concerns of many, who say they fear that the NATO force, with a primarily peacekeeping role, will be unable to battle the mounting insurgency in the south.



Afghanistan’s military dismisses such fears as groundless.



“The troops which are replacing the US-led Coalition forces in southern Afghanistan are stronger than the Coalition forces. I believe they will be much more effective. [The handover] is not a matter of concern for us,” said General Abdul Rahim Wardak, the Afghan defence minister.



A spokesman for Coalition forces, Lieutenant Colonel Laurent Fox, also downplayed the significance of the handover to NATO.



“I believe that the British soldiers, the Dutch soldiers and the Canadian soldiers are more than capable of continuing what we were doing [in the south],” he said. “They are very accomplished and have a long history of success.”



The new NATO force will certainly face a challenge, a point not lost on the Netherlands parliament which hotly debated the issue before finally agreeing to the deployment.The Dutch troops are expected to maintain security in the volatile province of Uruzgan.



US Ambassador Ronald Neumann, speaking to reporters in Washington in late December, acknowledged the difficulties that the new troops would face, especially in places like Uruzgan.



“It is certainly not a peacekeeping mission,” he said. “When you have a force that’s carrying out an active insurgency, that’s not peacekeeping.”



But Fox argues that the increasingly frequent attacks are a sign that the Coalition forces are winning.



“There has been an increase in suicide bombers and explosive devices,” he said. “This is either a sign that [the Taleban] are getting stronger, or a sign of desperation. I think it is a sign of desperation.”



But others disagree, maintaining that the troop withdrawal will be seen as a sign that the Taleban and al-Qaeda are gaining ground.



“If America leaves, it is a victory for their opponents. It is a signal that they should step up their war,” said political analyst Mohammad Qasim Akhgar.



“A US withdrawal would precipitate a severe political, military, and economic crisis,” said Fazel Rahman Oria, political analyst and editor of the Payam monthly.



The escalating violence is also seen by some as a failure of US policy in the country.



“If America had done its work honestly in the south and the east, if they had improved people’s lives, I am sure there would not have been this fighting. There would not have been any problems,” said Rafi, the political analyst.



Many ordinary Afghans appear to agree.



“I ask the Americans, you came to fight terrorism and ensure peace - have you done this? If so, then why do we still have fighting in the country? And if you haven’t done it, why are you leaving?” said Nafisa, 40, a schoolteacher in Kabul.



“If Americans forget Afghanistan, they will have to fight terrorism at home, in Washington,” she added.



Others argue that the partial withdrawal is a tacit admission that US forces have already outstayed their welcome.



“The US government is just trying to calm anti-American sentiment in Afghanistan,” said Akhgar. “They want to counteract the Taleban propaganda that their troops are here to occupy the country.”



Gharibullah, a former colonel in the Afghan army, said that the sooner the Americans leave, the better.



“Americans have brought us more loss than benefit,” he said. “The destroyed our professional army. They have encouraged their slave Pakistan to occupy our soil under the slogan of the war on terror. Instead of bombing Pakistan, which is the nest of terrorism, they have bombarded our villages and homes and killed a lot of innocent people.



“Instead of putting war criminals on trial, they have made them the rulers of our oppressed nation. We are tired of having friends like these.”



Hafiz Gardesh is the IWPR local editor in Kabul; Wahidullah Amani is an IWPR staff reporter in Kabul.