Nothing new in Obama's policy

The international aid donors' conference held in Holland on March 31 had been slated as a make-or-break moment for Afghanistan.

Despite the hype, however, the conference is unlikely to alter the course of events in Afghanistan. The country is embroiled in a low intensity war against a variety of insurgents and bandits capable of holding their own for years.

The real interest of the conference is that it offered the Obama administration an opportunity to unveil its long-promised 'new' policy on Afghanistan or, indeed, to show whether it had a policy.

Let's hope I am wrong, but as things are, right now I cannot detect anything resembling a policy.

What we have had so far is an attitude, not a policy. This attitude consists of statements, visits and diplomatic gesticulations designed to show that Obama is not George W. Bush. The message is: "We are not what they were."

Here is how Richard Holbrooke, the man appointed by US President Barack Obama as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan puts it: "In the past, the United States government stove-piped it, they had an Afghan policy and a Pakistan policy. We have to integrate the two and I hope the rest of the world will join us in that effort."

Holbrooke must have missed the gasp of surprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan when he told their leaders that US policy would no longer treat the two countries separately.

Holbrooke's analysis is wrong.

As neighbours, Pakistan and Afghanistan share a number of problems, among them terrorism, drug smuggling and Islamist extremism.

However, they are two very different countries that have to be dealt with separately and through different styles of diplomacy.

One big difference is the presence of some 80,000 Nato troops in Afghanistan, something unimaginable in Pakistan.

Another difference is the presence of genuine people-based political parties in Pakistan, something that Afghanistan's personality-based politics still lacks.

Finally, there is the fact that Pakistan has one of the world's largest armies while Afghanistan has no more than half a dozen combat-ready units.

Holbrooke accused the previous administration of "neglect". However, the US and its allies have been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years and have poured billions of dollars into Pakistan.

Also, the US has been closely involved in every political development in Kabul and Islamabad, including the creation of a pluralist system in Afghanistan and the transition from military rule to democratic government in Pakistan. No sign of neglect in any of that.

The Obama administration must fix a date for moving beyond its current 'we are not Bush' phase. After that, it will have to come up with credible policies rather than Bush-bashing clichés.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, Obama should free himself from a number of misconceptions before he is able to contemplate the development of serious policy.

The first misconception is that the US and its Afghan allies are losing. This is not true.

Last year saw a 40 per cent increase in the number of terror victims, largely because of a rise in suicide attacks.

Part of that was due to the arrival en masse of jihadists forced to leave Iraq after Al Qaida's defeat there. However, although the insurgents did kill more people, they failed to translate those killings into gains on the ground such as control of territory or the exclusion of Nato and Afghan forces from designated areas.

Nor have the terrorists succeeded in disrupting major reconstruction projects or preventing an economic boom that is dramatically noticeable in such cities as Mazar-e-Sharif, Herat and Jalalabad.

More importantly, perhaps, a series of opinion surveys reveal no increase in support for the Taliban. Even in provinces, such as Arzangan, the birthplace and home of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, the trend of opinion does not seem to favour the insurgency.

The second misconception is that the Bush administration had opposed any power sharing with 'moderate' elements from the Taliban.

That is not true, either.

Some 12 per cent of the current Afghan parliament's membership consists of former Taliban or erstwhile Taliban collaborators.

Afghanistan's Attorney-General Abdul Jaber Sabet was a senior Taliban commander and spent years in Guantanamo Bay prison after the US-led intervention in Afghanistan.

The new constitution leaves the door open for the Taliban to enter politics as a normal party, provided they renounce terrorism. In fact, nine of the 67 groups registered as political parties in Afghanistan today consist of former Taliban.

The US has many friends in Afghanistan and should do nothing to dishearten them by talking about an 'exit strategy' that would include bringing back the Taliban.

Two issues require Obama's urgent attention.

The first is the crisis brewing over the next presidential election in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Supreme Court has postponed the election until August while President Hamid Karzai's term runs out in May.

Karzai insists that he should remain as caretaker, until a new president is sworn in. Many in the parliament, perhaps a majority, say he should step down and allow the chairman of the upper chamber, Afghanistan's equivalent of the senate, to act as caretaker.

The dispute could undermine the credibility of the coming election; something that Obama should do all he can to prevent.

The second issue that requires Obama's attention is the appointment of a coordinator capable of making sure that the US, Nato, the European Union, the United Nations and major aid donors such as India, pull in the same direction.

Part of Afghanistan's current troubles is due to the cacophony caused by so many different elements singing from different hymn sheets.

Afghanistan is not lost.

The Taliban have been defeated, and should not be helped to revive as a movement. Outside a couple of provinces in the Pashtun heartland, Mullah Omar and his gang do not have a significant political base.

The US should remain committed to new Afghanistan with two objectives: dismantling the remaining terrorist structures and helping Afghans consolidate their democratic gains.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe.