Opinion Protests in Afghanistan

Small incidents often have a big impact on the dynamics of a war. The recent burning of copies of the Quran by US soldiers,and the angry Afghan reaction to it,could well turn out to be a decisive moment in the Afghan endgame.

President Barack Obama has apologised to the Afghan people and the US military leadership is eager to put the incident behind it and move on. “Not so fast”,is the message from the ground. A gunman dressed in Afghan military uniform shot two senior US officers inside the heavily guarded Afghan Interior Ministry in Kabul this weekend.

In response,the NATO has pulled out all advisers from the ministries in Kabul. This move is said to be temporary; the international advisers hope to return once calm prevails. Pentagon spokesmen say there will be no change in the current US strategy of handing over security responsibilities to Afghan forces and the American troops shifting to training mode.

The US training mission could,however,come under stress if US advisers are routinely targeted by hostile elements in the Afghan security forces. According to the Pentagon,around 70 members of the NATO forces have been killed so far in 42 insider attacks from May 2007 to January 2012. There is no denying the deepening distrust between local and foreign troops,the increased risks for the US training mission,and the big political boost for the Taliban from the recent turn of events. As a suicide bombing on Monday in front of a military base in Jalalabad killed 10 people,the Taliban claimed it as retaliation for the burning of the Quran.

The Afghan protests will also weaken President Hamid Karzai,who is under greater pressure to politically distance himself from the very international coalition that underwrites his regime. These latest killings are likely to intensify consultations among US,NATO and Afghan officials on changes to security procedures for training and advisory activities.

The US debate

Beyond the technical question of developing new security protocols,the latest developments have inevitably fed into the broader debate in the US strategic community about the effectiveness of Obama’s military strategy in Afghanistan.

Some argue that the latest developments underline the fragility of the situation in Afghanistan,and that Obama is wrong in wanting to end the US combat role there by 2014,if not earlier.

In contrast to those who are calling for a prolonged and more intensive military commitment to Afghanistan,others draw the opposite conclusion from the same set of events. The second line argues that the recent incidents are proof that the Afghan war cannot be won and that Washington must cut its losses and disengage at the earliest.

Obama’s apologies

The Republican contenders for the US presidential nomination have taken the debate on Afghanistan to a very different level. Their focus is on Obama’s apology to the Afghan nation on the Quran burning incident.

In a letter to Karzai,Obama called the burning of the Quran copies “inadvertent”,and promised to take “appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence,including holding accountable those responsible.” Republican candidate Newt Gingrich,former speaker of the House of Representatives,called the US apology “astonishing” and undeserved.

Rick Santorum said the burning incident was a mistake. “To apologise for something that was not an intentional act is something that the president of the United States,in my opinion,should not have done. I think it shows weakness.”

The Republican front-runner,Mitt Romney,has long criticised Obama’s foreign policy as “apologising for America”. Romney said Obama had emboldened Afghan militants by publicly announcing the withdrawal timetable and also publicly apologising for the Quran incident.

Romney warned that Washington’s attempt to placate the Afghans would have consequences on election day in the US,because the American people would not countenance Obama’s supine foreign policy. Obama might get into deeper trouble if he goes ahead with the current plans to offer an apology to Islamabad for the NATO attacks on a Pakistani military base on the Afghan border last November.

The White House,which had initially refused to tender an apology,appears to have been persuaded that public contrition is the only way to restore a working relationship with Pakistan.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research,Delhi