In the end, the natural instinct of survival succumbed to imperialistic ambitions to which alien intruders did not commit their lives for long. The content of the last report submitted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO and United States forces in Afghanistan, can be summarized as “serious but still winnable.”Afghanistan will not become a major threat to the world if it falls into the hands of the wild-looking, bearded local fighters. However, if the West fails to bring peace, prosperity and stability to this country, as it promised at the onset of its invasion, it will be a setback for “Western civilization,” which claimed to be conveying civilization at gunpoint. However, the brunt of the failure will be borne by the US and NATO especially. NATO may become a relic if it fails in Afghanistan. This failure could also be the beginning of the backsliding of the Obama administration.
Changing times and threat perceptions, and the special case of Afghanistan in particular, are pressuring NATO and the US as the “big brother” to take the initiative to produce a new “strategic concept” to chart the future course of the alliance. Only a workable plan for the future can save NATO from becoming obsolete, despite the grand history behind it.
Can the future of Afghanistan and NATO’s relevance in today’s world be integrated by sculpting a new strategic concept? This is a critical question and a major challenge for the alliance. That is why a commission of 12 “experts” brought together by NATO has begun to work to achieve this. Former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright is the chairwoman of this commission. The group is expected to finish its report by the fall of 2010 when the NATO heads of state will meet in Lisbon.
Afghanistan is not only a security issue for the US. The Obama administration saw it as a tactical instrument to disengage from its predecessor’s fixation on Iraq. But whether this administration will succeed in achieving a happy end in Afghanistan is doubtful as the country is in shambles due to decades of warfare and neglect. The Afghan government can not govern. Economic development is failing. The standard of living for Afghans remains abject and is not improving. The Karzai government is called the “municipality of Kabul.” Its mandate does reach much farther than the capital city. It is corrupt and weak; the latest elections have revealed the fact that Mr. Karzai is not that popular with the Afghan people. Foreign audits suggest that only a small portion of foreign aid reaches the people.
The insurgency led by the Taliban has spread recently, pushing the number of NATO casualties up as operational intensity increases. What can NATO do under these circumstances? Experts suggest that an accurate assessment of probable military gains must be made and the prospects of economic development must be sufficient to allow the country to stand on its own two feet. The first involves the willingness of NATO member states to commit more troops and hardware. Secondly, new and more diverse economic resources have to be found and allocated according to a realistic plan to make the country self-sufficient. Thirdly, the worst must be expected, something that requires courage and statesmanship to handle. If the assessment concerning the increase in the number of troops, the investment in economic development and humanitarian aid seems to produce few positive results to turn the existing grim conditions around, a drastic decision has to be made. This decision can be made by asking the question: “Is NATO prepared to consider an ‘exit strategy’ to leave this graveyard of empires and imperial designs?”
This question is the most challenging one for NATO and the Western alliance, both of which believe they have a civilization to protect from the unruly centrifugal forces that will spread out of Afghanistan if this critical theater is abandoned. Not only the future of NATO, but also the fortune of the US president will be at stake if they withdraw in failure. But then, what are the prospects of success?
