An interview with Wahid Mojda, Kabul-based political analyst

Q: Afghanistan has lost two important figures -- Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, who has recently died, and former commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, who was removed from his post last summer. Both played a key role in forming the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. In your opinion, what will be the impact of their absence on the new strategy?

A: Richard Holbrooke and General McChrystal did indeed play a key role in the U.S. strategy for Afghanistan. Last year, McChrystal advised U.S. officials to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan if they wanted to escape defeat in Afghanistan. He also emphasized the protection of the civilian population. It was McChrystal who said that merely gaining land would not ensure success; victory would come only when the foreign forces win hearts and minds. He opposed an increase in the use of airstrikes.

But when he was dismissed from his post, the United States abandoned his recommendations. They stepped up airstrikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, causing major casualties. President Hamid Karzai criticized the attacks quite harshly; as a result, the relations between the United State and the Afghan government became tense.

In my opinion, no significant change has been brought in the new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan; airstrikes along with civilian causalities have increased. This has caused the Afghan people to lose trust in their own government as well as in their international allies. 

Q: For the first time the U.S. Chief of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said that roots of terrorism are in Pakistan. Do such remarks show that the U.S. policy is changing towards Pakistan?

A: This is not the first time that U.S. officials have made such remarks. A few years ago, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, said that the United States should institute harsh policies towards Pakistan. Such remarks resulted in his dismissal. I can say that Pakistan is very important for the United States in the region.

The entire world knows where the terrorism comes from. Why did the United States not attack Pakistan if they wanted to eradicate terrorism? They should have attacked Pakistan instead of Iraq right after the attack on Afghanistan. The United States sometime criticizes Pakistan, but it does not mean to adopt any harsh measures against the country. It does not want to lose Pakistan, no matter what the cost.

Q: President Barack Obama’s new strategy has been criticized because Afghans’ views were not considered, and the changes made are purely technical. What do you think?

A: The United States consulted with Afghans when it formed the first strategy for Afghanistan. But strategy does not really change. The fight against terrorism is a tactic, not a strategy. In my opinion, the U.S. has a greater strategy, to extend its power in the world.

Changing the tempo of the offensive is a tactic. The United States is not exposing its main strategy; but it seems that the United States wants to ensure that no one can challenge its power in the world.

Q: In your opinion, how much will the Republican Party’s success in the U.S. Congressional elections affect U.S. policy?

A: Apparently, the people of America were unhappy with the Republicans when Obama won the election. It was thought that the Republicans might not be able to win elections for at least another two electoral cycles. But very soon it emerged that the people of America are not satisfied with Obama’s policy.

Obama took the lead at a time when the United States was facing a crisis, which still exists. The war in Afghanistan is a burden for the United States. The people of America are not thinking about who has caused this situation; they are too concerned with their daily lives. This was the reason the Republicans won more seats in the Congress. Obama is a Democrat, but the Republicans can force him to consider their will; otherwise, he may face more problems.

Q: U.S. officials have released conflicting information about the withdrawal of their forces. They are supposed to start the process in July, 2011, and finish in 2014. In your opinion, is this realistic?

A: It is not very clear whether the United States really wants to leave Afghanistan, or whether they want to strengthen their military bases here and stay for a long time. Considering the situation, 2014 will be a sensitive year for Afghanistan. There will be presidential elections in Afghanistan and Congressional election in the United States that year. They talk about transferring security responsibility to Afghan forces but as time goes on and we see no major improvement, we cannot think that the situation will be better by 2014.

We can talk about a transfer of responsibility to Afghan forces if U.S. and NATO forces destroy Al-Qaida and the Taliban and clean out their nests by 2014, and force Pakistan to cooperate in war on terror honestly. But if the situation remains unchanged then I think that it will be a defeat for the U.S. if they leave.

The United State should pay strict attention to two important issues before withdrawing from Afghanistan. First, they should support peace negotiations. Second, they should find a replacement for President Karzai since he will not be able to run for office in 2014. But as I think they are too busy to focus on these issues. They are in a similar situation to the Russians in their last years in Afghanistan. They try to form militias and conduct some other useless activities. Such things strengthen the Taliban’s morale. They think that when the Americans leave Afghanistan, then there is no alternative except for them to take the power; so they are waiting for that moment.

I my opinion, it is a very dangerous situation and both Afghans and foreigners should be aware of this. Foreigners should help the Afghan security forces to stabilize the country and establish peace. But if the Americans leave with things as they are now, Afghanistan will go through the same scenario as in the 1990s, when the country degenerated into civil war.