War on Iran I: The case of Afghanistan

As the US is preparing for a new war, this time against Iran, the European countries have once again to assess where they stand. I will subsequently argue that, this time, the Union is all set for the fullest support possible for the next US war. In three pieces I want to look at the Union’s role in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how Union’s participation in a disastrous Iran war can be prevented.

Afghanistan: the Silent War
In stark contrast to Iraq, Afghanistan has gently slipped out of the public consciousness since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2002. In absence of major occurrences the deployment in Afghanistan is now seen, if at all, as a success.

Political and (the few existing) media reports, though, paint a grim picture: the security situation stays troublesome, both the central government and the international forces lack control over most of the country, and the Taliban is regaining momentum. Major relief organizations have pulled out of most of the country, most of the population is left on its own.

The sad reality is that Afghanistan has simply slipped out of control and is yet another country to be added to the list of failed states. Different to cases like Somalia is the fact that it’s not only part of a region that the Western countries deem crucial for international stability. It’s also been the first major spot of the US-led so-called “War on Terror”. The fact that it has devastatingly failed should give some thoughts about the Western anti-terror strategy.

The EU in Afghanistan
What’s so crucial about Afghanistan is that is has turned from a US problem into a European one. Widely out of sight from the general public, various European nations have deployed troops in Afghanistan under different missions, so that they now account for about 50% of the international troops stationed there.

The UN-mandated and NATO-led mission ISAF has 10.000 soldiers in Afghanistan. The biggest troop contingents are sent by Germany (2600), Italy (2000), UK (500), France (500) and Turkey. Additionally, France and the UK participate in the US mission Enduring Freedom with about 1300 soldiers.

With such troop deployment, Europe has taken over responsibilities from the US, which has in recent years constantly reduced its troop numbers.

Additionally to military deployment, the European Union is probably the most important financial donor to Afghanistan. (This is an assumption, as the financial numbers available for me don’t allow a full comparison)

Dangerous Afghanistan
European public opinion towards warfare in the last 15 years is constant and clear: While Europeans usually support limited humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, they widely oppose broad and offensive warfare.

The most obvious problem is that Afghanistan still is one of the most dangerous countries: with about 80 US casualties in the last year Afghanistan has been as deadly as Iraq, compared to the troop numbers (16.000 US-troops in Afghanistan, 160.000 in Iraq). (Due to bad public documentation of the various European countries, I did not manage to calculate a realistic number of European casualties so far.)

Taking into account the current level of financial, military and political involvement, the international involvement in Afghanistan shows all signs of resignation.

Political dilemma
The European Union is in a difficult political situation: it’s of course not in the European interest to let Afghanistan become a pariah-state. Additionally, the European governments want to reclaim their position as the most important allies of the US and are therefor eager to show their worthiness and support. And the war in Afghanistan has not been a contested question in 2002: willing to lend support to a furious post-9/11 US, there has been no major critique of European governments towards the attack and overthrow of the Taliban.

But that’s not the whole picture as the war in Afghanistan is connected in virtually all levels to the ongoing war in Iraq. It’s not an overstatement to say that the European involvement in Afghanistan relieves the US of a military and financial burden. Which is, in turn, very much welcomed by a politically and financially overburdened United States.

Betrayed public
It is obvious that this is not what the European population wants. The vivid opposition to the Iraq war and the involvement by European governments is constantly strong. And it’s not only about the fear of losing own soldiers – it is an opposition against war as a way of politcs, and it’s an opposition against the hit-the-head politics of the US in the Middle East.

Lessons learned
An assessment of the Union’s involvement in Afghanistan should be part of an assessment of the “War on Terror”, the concept that has guided both the US’ and the Union’s international policies since 9/11. I will try that in the third article of this series. Nevertheless, Afghanistan provides some lessons in itself:

1) The European public is simply not aware of the ongoing warfare in Afghanistan (the number of air strikes has constantly risen in the last years), the high number of casualties and the rising European involvement in Afghanistan (only last autumn Germany added another 800 troops to its contingent). That form of low-key take-over of the main burden in Afghanistan from the US and its implicit support for the ongoing war in Iraq and a future war in Iran is wrong, and the European public wouldn’t agree to it.

2) The way Afghanistan is handled by the coalition at the moment simply means to give it up. If the “war on terror”-strategy is not able to secure and pacify Afghanistan after 4 years, then it means that it does not work. But if the “war on terror”-strategy makes Afghanistan an even less safe and more dangerous place, then the strategy is outrageously dangerous.