Pleading for Military Engagement in Afghanistan

The debate about military deployment of international and German troops in particular ignores one crucial point of view: The opinion of major parts of the Afghan society. Different factions in Germany claim to voice the opinion and interest of all Afghans. An appropriation which actually opposes Afghan interests diametrically. This paternalism is also reflected in the benevolent interpretations of Afghan and exile Afghan interests, which include that Afghans in general should oppose military engagement of international troops in their country. The perception of the peace process by the Afghan population cannot be painted as a black and white picture.

Shaken by war, Afghans have been highly politically sensitized for decades. For centuries they have been experts in defining congruent interests and forming coalitions out of pragmatism. They very well are able to have a differentiated view on the international engagement and they not only criticize failures of the military, but also have a critical look on the efficiency of international and national NGOs. However, the criticism of Afghans concerning aid transparency and efficiency isn’t heard, since the debate in Germany paradoxically merely focuses on the military aspect. Nevertheless, a similar controversial debate is held in Afghanistan about the deficits of aid and reconstruction. Despite the alleged focus on civil reconstruction, this issue isn’t discussed with the necessary differentiation in Germany. Of course there is also a difference of opinion in Afghanistan. The role of international troops and NGOs and the efficiency of their presence are not unconditionally endorsed by the Afghans. However, a large majority supports the presence of international troops, particularly in North-Afghanistan.

A recent study from a special political science research* unit of the renowned Free University of Berlin comes to a similar conclusion: 80% of the interviewed individuals in northern areas of Afghanistan voiced the opinion that foreign forces ensure and provide security. During the press conference, the researchers expressed their surprise concerning this positive opinion of the Afghans. Surprising especially since there seems to be a growing assessment in Germany that the military engagement in Afghanistan was a failure and the forces are labeled as occupiers. The study’s results are contradicting this assumption: In particular the presence of German ISAF troops is perceived as a guarantor for increased security in North-Afghanistan. The population is worried that without this presence the current hybrid structure could degenerate into total chaos. Different warlords would try to yield the power back which they lost under the presence of ISAF and would drive Afghanistan back into civil-war as in 1992 to 1996.

This widespread positive perception of foreign troops in North-Afghanistan is not necessarily valid for the whole country. However, the regional diversity of perception is not based on ethnical divides (“…Pashtuns are categorically against foreigners...”), but is rather a comprehensible result of the different strategies of NATO/ISAF on one side and OEF/USA (Operation Enduring Freedom) on the other. In the South-East parts of the country, along the NWFP, the population is deeply concerned and critical about the presence of foreign troops. However, criticism mostly focuses on the modus operandi of US troops in the framework of OEF. In the search for Al-Qaida members and Taliban, hundreds of innocent Afghan civilians have been killed as ‘collateral damage’ during special operations.

The abovementioned study shows that major parts of the Afghan society are positively committed toward the presence of international forces, which is contrary to the perception of parties and people in Germany. However, these facts do not play any role in the debate about the presence of German troops in Afghanistan. In particular since the new government is in charge (2005), a number of domestic political conflicts in Germany dominate the discussion about the engagement in Afghanistan, thus continuously neglecting the needs of the Afghan population.

It is frightening to observe how little the Afghan voices are reflected within these debates. All hints to Afghan criticisms are vehemently ignored, showing how little the parties are actually concerned with the very sense of this peace-keeping mission. One main reason for this mission was the idea to free the Afghans from the humiliating regime of the Taliban, with reference to the UN protection doctrine (‘Responsibility to Protect’). The international community has committed to this goal in Afghanistan.

How little Afghan voices count within these discussions is reflected in the debates of different political fractions in Germany about the deployment of troops. Such as, during a conference of the German Peace Movement the results of a study about the effect of German troops in Afghanistan (conducted by ARD, BBC and ABC) were labeled as propaganda of NATO and USA. Ironically, the same person even admitted that he is not aware of this study. Even inviting Afghans to debates are marked as an evil means to occupy Afghanistan. This was for instance the case during a party meeting of the German Party SPD, prior to the last vote about the extension of German military engagement in Afghanistan. Even appeals of female Afghan MPs and members of the civil society, which tried to convince the German MPs to vote for an extension of their military engagement in Afghanistan, were ignored. Their opinions were feared to instrumentalize and emotionalize the debate. German MP’s who had to vote on an extension of the mission in Afghanistan were even afraid to be accused of having initialized that same appeal. The mistrust was not targeted on the Afghan MPs but dominates the interaction between the pro- and anti-Afghanistan mission groups.

These debates rather serve domestic political fractional conflicts, and the Afghan population cannot relate to it: In the mixture of different interests one core aspect and reason for the mission is ignored. Decisive for the public support of the mission was the UN-Mandate which put the responsibility of humanitarian intervention into the center of the Afghanistan mission. An approach which is shared by the basic concept of German security policy: Security Policy serves not only excessively for national defense, but should also take responsibility on international scale. However, first and foremost the intervention in Afghanistan was to ensure security interests of Germany and other Western states.

There are for sure a number of legitimate reasons to debate the limitations of military peace-interventions, the role of NATO or the effectiveness of civil-military cooperation.  However, exploiting the Afghanistan mission for means of domestic political debates, in the end leads to a repetition of the tragic history of a country which suffered a lot from interests of foreign actors. Meanwhile, the German people are not aware anymore of the actual reasons for the German engagement in Afghanistan. The reason for this deficit of information is the failure of the governmental information and communication strategy. There are enough good reasons why 37 nations are joining in the Afghanistan mission. The German government is obliged, above all for the reason of self-interest, to communicate these reasons to the German people. The abovementioned reasons for the mission are in danger to be forgotten, since one is rather absorbed with his/her own party conflicts.

*„International Actors in Afghanistan“ conducted by Jan Köhler and Christoph Zürcher from the Research Center 700 (Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood) of Free University in Berlin