Afghanistan – Collateral damage of every sort
Sep 10th 2009 | BERLIN AND KUNDUZ | The Economist print edition
The West’s mission in Afghanistan is under attack on many fronts. With tension high after a difficult and partly rigged election, the last thing NATO forces in Afghanistan needed was for scores of Afghan civilians to be killed by yet another fumbled attack. But on September 4th a German commander called in an American air raid near Kunduz, in the north, against Taliban insurgents who had stolen a pair of fuel trucks. Scores were killed, not all of them Taliban. The repercussions were felt across Afghanistan, and in Germany itself. Four of the five main parties contesting the parliamentary election in Germany on September 27th support the deployment of troops in Afghanistan. But most voters do not. So a conspiracy of silence has kept one of the touchiest issues out of the political debate. The silence has now been shattered. Citing a NATO fact-finding mission, the Washington Post reported that about 125 people were killed, many of them civilians, on the basis of intelligence provided by a single Afghan informant.
General Stanley McChrystal, the new American commander of ISAF, the NATO-led force, has stressed the importance of reducing civilian casualties, and was said to be “incandescent”. The German government’s first reaction was confused. The defence minister, Franz Josef Jung, insisted that only Taliban died, but later admitted that this might not be so. The defence ministry says 56 people died. Often mocked for confining its 4,200 troops to the relatively safe north, Germany now stands accused of overreacting when a threat appears. It has responded angrily. The defence ministry stands by the decision to destroy potential “rolling bombs” that could have been used against German troops. The air raid took place less than four miles (6.4km) from the German forces’ base.
German politicians have tried to portray the Afghan deployment not as a combat mission but as a humanitarian one. That claim now rings hollow. Germany’s participation in ISAF must be debated anew by the parliament, the Bundestag, in December. There is little doubt that it will be renewed, but pressure is growing for an exit strategy. The chancellor, Angela Merkel, has joined Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, and France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, in calling for an international conference on how to shift responsibility for security from ISAF to the Afghan government. But America is expected to ask for more from its allies, not less. One reason for this is the deterioration in security both in the insurgency-ridden south and in Kunduz and some other parts of the north. It was in the plains around Kunduz that the Taliban surrendered to the Northern Alliance in late 2001. Restricted from joining combat operations, German forces there have tried to concentrate on development projects. But last year saw a fivefold increase in “security incidents” in the ethnically diverse province. This year has been even worse. In Chahar Dara district, an ethnic-Pushtun stronghold, aid workers are leaving and Afghan contractors are often forced to pay protection money to prevent the kind of roadside ambushes and improvised explosive devices that are aimed at German troops.
It was there that a British journalist, Stephen Farrell, was held this week after being kidnapped while investigating the air strike. He was later rescued by NATO soldiers in a pre-dawn raid. But further souring attitudes to foreign forces, his Afghan colleague, Sultan Munadi, and two other Afghan civilians died in the operation. A British soldier was also killed. In Chahar Dara militants travel around in their dozens in open Lorries. They extort food and taxes from local people, often taking more than 10% of their income. They have also begun to man checkpoints on the highway that runs south from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, a vital alternative to the Khyber Pass as an ISAF supply line. For all its modern firepower, armoured vehicles and thousands of troops, the German army has made little headway against the militants. In July a 2,000-strong clearing operation tried to pacify Chahar Dara before the presidential election on August 20th. Locals say the militants, including some from Uzbekistan and the Afghan south, left the area only to return later, and more are coming every month. Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, has reportedly called on his fighters to open a new front in the north to stretch coalition forces. Violence across the region surged in the run-up to the election. On polling day itself rockets were fired into Kunduz city for the first time since 2001. Neighbouring Baghlan saw the worst bloodshed of any province. President Hamid Karzai seems certain of winning his second term, despite charges of massive vote-rigging. By mid-week, results showed him with 54% of the votes, after nearly all had been counted. But a United Nations-backed watchdog ordered a partial recount, and final results are not expected until the end of the month. With so much evidence of fraud, supporters of Mr. Karzai’s main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, may not accept the victory. Unrest is still possible. And in the north, a region where security has long been taken for granted, Taliban advances are rattling foreign forces’ resolve.
nvs Blog of Politico-Economics 