Taliban and NATO along the Afghan-Pakistani border

By Vladimir Plastun, Professor at Novosibirsk State University’s oriental studies department, D.Sc. (history), expert-ethnographer on Afghan army (1988), special correspondent of the Moscow-based daily Pravda in Afghanistan (1989).

Since the beginning of summer Taliban militant groups and US and NATO coalition forces have waged fierce fighting in afghan provinces bordering with Pakistan. It is well-known that none of the Afghan regimes that had been in power since the appearance of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the world map has ever recognized the Durand Line that inherited from British colonizers as the country’s state boarder.

US and NATO coalition forces in the region are estimated at 22 thousand servicemen and are concentrated in several provinces along the Afghan-Pakistani boarder. Experts say that the number of troops on the contrary to the assurances by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about the reduction of American contingent by 3 thousand soldiers will most likely remain unchanged at least in the next 3-5 years.

Under a NATO decision coalition forces in the region came under NATO command from International Security Assistance Force, ASAF and this paved the way for the US Defence Secretary to free its contingent and deploy them in more dangerous areas. Among these is largely-Pushtu and Baluchi-populated area. This is a territory where Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants have the ability to deploy their fighters and weapons quite freely to places where they could set ambushes on NATO military convoys and patrols. Terrorist organizations have preserved and strengthened control over significant territory of Pakistan’s Northern Waziristan and use the ethnic, tribal and clan ties of Pushtus. The overall number of their militants, according to western observers, is estimated between 5-6 thousand people, an increase by 30 times compared with last year. Taliban says its capacity is 12 thousand militants, while NATO insists that the enemy is well-equipped and posses advanced weapons that meet contemporary demands.

International mass media has more than once noted that the US and Afghan governments have criticized the Pakistani authorities for ignoring security in the dangerous region flooded with rebels. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, however firmly rejects accusations pointing to the elimination of several Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders. Pakistan, a key ally of Washington in antiterrorist campaign has dislocated about 80 thousand servicemen. However, the former US ambassador to Afghanistan Peter Thomson insists that the use of Pakistani forces prompts Pushtu youth to join the Taliban movement. This is confirmed by the Pakistani press, which says that about 20 thousand religious schools function in the north-western border region that are financed by funds of Moslem countries in the Gulf region. Young Pushtus get ideological training at these religious schools so that they could be involved in conflicts in Central Asia.

Why Pakistan is indecisive in fighting against terrorists? According to experts, one fifth of the MPs of Pakistani parliament is consisted of fundamentalists and high ranking officers too. They support the Taliban and its activity not only in Waziristan. In these circumstances it is quite difficult for General Musharraf to oppose radical Islam, which is supported by the majority of the country’s population. There are two reasons for such support. Firstly, Taliban consists of Pushtu Moslems and secondly, Taliban fights against foreign occupants. A latest opinion poll shows that only 30% Pakistanis support US war against terrorism.

Currently, the ISAF that includes contingents from Britain, Canada and Denmark bear the brunt in carrying out operations. Forces from Australia and Macedonia that are non-NATO members also support the three countries. In all 8 thousand troops or two times more than the US servicemen, who held positions before, withstand Islamists.

The number of attacks on facilities and contingents of the multinational forces has sharply increased to over 200 a year compared with the period between 2002-2005 when the average number of attacks was 45 a year. The multinational forces lost about 60 people in 2002 and over 300 in 2005. Reportedly, 78 servicemen, mainly Americans were killed in the first six months of the year. The number of US servicemen who were killed has increased again in the past ten days.

Taliban militants are basically local people who were forced to leave their homeland and take refuge in the northwestern boarder province of Pakistan during the civil war that broke out after the deployment of Soviet forces between 1978-1989. They know the area quite well and cross the virtual border easily. When they return back they become aware that their relatives hear only promises to improve the economic situation and restore infrastructure but see no real progress. Consequently, Taliban militants are being received cordially and freely conduct propaganda campaign to recruit volunteers. As a result the Taliban has reserves to fill its militant groups.

Peter Thompson says: “Afghans are not subjected to any ideology. They are not tuned to support Americans, Pakistanis or Taliban. They go in the direction where wind blows, where they can get maximum advantage. Currently, wind blows in the direction favourable for the Taliban movement.

According to the director of London-based centre for foreign policy analysis, P. Moorcraft, the main reason for the failures in the operation code-named Enduring Freedom that started 2001 and the current large-scale fighting by ISAF is poor coordination between forces headed by American commandos and NATO contingents led by the British command. Moreover, experts see that there is no agreement in principle in the involvement in fulfilling the task by the NATO members, several of which consider the war as another hell broke organized by the United States. Washington agrees to use its forces only as military backing in a mission aimed at freeing Afghans from terrorists.

High hopes has been pinned for the activity of the servicemen of the Afghan national army, ANA but it has not yet formed, trained properly and equipped with advanced weapons. There are 26 thousand servicemen in the army and about 54 thousand in police. The number of soldiers is expected to increase up to 70 thousand by 2008. However, Defence Minister Abdul Rahman Vardak has recently insisted the need for increasing the number of troops up to 200 thousand. He believes that under these circumstances there is a need for reviewing the national army development plan.

ANA has to fight against its compatriots, and this provokes a pure psychological resistance at the ethnic and religious level. On the other hand a Taliban militant get 12 US dollars a day, while An Afghan government soldier only 4 dollars a day. This is quite big difference. Even the American instructors who train Afghan soldiers note that Taliban militants, local resident feel themselves in the mountains as if fish in water and they are well-fed from the financial standpoint than the Afghan soldiers who have to risk their lives away from home for a meagre. In fact, this has significantly affected combat capability of the Afghan army when they fought alongside Soviet soldiers 27 years ago.

No one will reject that the use of advanced and smart weapons plays a decisive role in a contemporary war and the soldiers should be paid properly for their ability to use such weapons, of course. However, one must not forget that the situation in Afghanistan is quite special when Afghans are forced to direct weapons against Taliban militants who were brought up by Americans, moral factor is quite significant. Afghan soldier that entered the war estimates first and fore most the nationality of the enemy and undoubtedly, his religion. The enemy feels himself less a mercenary. Moreover, many soldiers of the Afghan army are from ethnic minorities, while the overwhelmingly majority of the Taliban militants is Pushtus who have always considered themselves as part of the ruling nation and opposed national minorities. In short, this is a fight between old national interests rather than political interests. Moreover, politics of the government is guided by foreigners.

The US Administration, most likely makes no attempt to go into such details by setting the strategic target before it, promote democracy at any cost in Central Asia.