| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghanistan needs an army of peacekeepers |
| 2002-02-03 |
I wrote a couple months ago (November 15th, if you're interested) that peacekeepers "would only work if the peace-keepers were authorized to use force as necessary to pacify the parties -- acting, in fact, as a national army for Afghanistan until all the factions had been disarmed." Much to my surprise, and probably to the surprise of the Afghans themselves, the peacekeepers deployed haven't been ineffectual conscripts from countries that avoid wars led by hack officers. For the most part they're real soldiers. Northern Alliance political initiatives have tried to keep them confined to Kabul, but it's becoming obvious this won't work - which was the original idea. It's also obvious that 30,000 plus troops aren't going to come from Britain, Turkey and whatever other countries would do some good by providing them. An Afghan national army is a good thing, taking troops from all ethnic groups and combining them into one unit for national defense. But using your national army for internal security is a bad thing. In fact, it's a Very Bad Thing. It sets an awful precedent, and will lead down the road to a state something like Pakistan, with a heavy involvement of the military in politics. In Afghanistan of all places that's something to be avoided. That leaves the police. Afghanistan can use a national police corps, even a paramilitary service. The Northern Alliance started on this before they entered Kabul, and one of their first foreign initiatives was to ask for help from India in this area. The US has also agreed to help. We've remained outside the Northern Alliance-provisional government tensions. We're busy trying to round up the al-Qaeda and Taliban stragglers and preventing them from regrouping. More importantly, it's their country, not ours. They're free to screw it up as they please or to turn it into an earthly paradise. We might hope they do the latter, but it's up to them. We can offer advice, though, and we can offer support to interested parties behind the scenes. We probably need to be more Your remark about "using your national army for internal security is a bad thing. In fact, it's a Very Bad Thing" is a very good point that cannot be repeated too often! For that reason I agree it might make sense SHORT TERM for effectual peaceMAKERS (i.e. Britain, Turkey, Canada) to kick some butt on Karzi's behalf as they will *not* be there for the long term. India could also play a very positive role here as it too actually has a meaningful army and the fact that Pakistan will hate them being involed will actually be a political plus in Afghanistan, given the understandable hostility to Pakistan felt by much of Afghan polity. The usual hyperbole about peacemaking has objectives such as "bringing Afghanistan into the 21st century", which is silly considering what has to happen before that glorious end. More practical is implementing such Victorian ideas such as building roads and utility grids, and establishing local police forces and effective judiciaries. Only after the locals begin to see the benefits of competent government will they become willing to invest in the taxes and political legitimacy needed to create a modern, 21st century society. |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |