The recent escalation in the border towns of Afghanistan is reminiscent of the emerging days of Mujahideen fighters against Russian occupation in Afghanistan in 1979. The only difference between the 80s and today’s fight are: In those days western backed Mujahideen were involved in fighting against Russian occupation and its self-declared Central Govt., and today Taliban militants are engaged in fighting, what they call the ‘against western presence’, and its supported Govt. in Kabul. The emerging locations of fighters, their slogans and tactics all seem
similar. If the accusation of the Afghan Govt. is taken into account, the foreign links of current fighters is also goes to the same direction. But today’s fight seems more serious, since many western countries are openly involved in this conflicted zone, and as well as some regional powers such as India and Pakistan. But opposite to the 80s, the more serious reality is that these regional opponents are not any more the sample powers but they are nuclear powers. In the current situation, the US and its allies seem increasingly more helpless after almost five years after its invasion of Afghanistan, which they regarded as the ‘liberation of the Afghan people’.

Background

The region today called Afghanistan has been an Islamic country since 642 AD, shortly after the spread of Islam across the Arab land and the surrounding region of Afghanistan. Since then this mountain country fought many fights against foreign invaders such as: Mongolians, Babars of central Asia, British, Russian, and as well as western powers. In the early decades of the past century, British colonists in South Asia made many efforts to bring Afghanistan into its colonial territory in the first quarter of the 1900s. But each of the British Govt.’s attempts failed due to external and internal problems, including the pressure of Soviet Union’s aggressive invasion of central Asian countries in the first quarter of 1900s.
But the situation dramatically changed in this territory, which was previously called Ariana, after the collapse of the monarchy of Muhammad Zahir Shah, in 1973, and after the significant influence of people with Marxist ideology among the High level officials in the Afghan Govt.
Muhammad Daoud Khan, the cousin of King Zahir was the first President of the so-called democratic Republic of Afghanistan, installed after 40 years of monarchy, but due to intense opposition by his opponents from Marxist People’s Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), Daoud’s Govt. was overthrown in 1978.
This not only led to groupings among the Afghan rulers, but also later divided the ruling party of PDPA into two groups: Khalk (Masses), and Parcham (Banner), headed by Nur Muhammad Taraki and Babrak Karmal.
Reunification of both groups brought Nur Muhammad Taraki to power after Daoud Khan, but they barely managed to remove differences between the two groups, which frequently resulted the bloodiest coups against each other mostly ended by harsh results such as executions of not only the leader, but also his entire family.
During this 18 months of rule, the PDPA applied completely pro-soviet Marxist-style reforms, decrees changing marriage customs, and land reforms, which according to many historians were misunderstood by a population deeply immersed in tradition and Islam. Such reforms not only led to the opposition of hundreds of the traditional and religious elite in establishment such as the first Mujahideen leaders Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Burhanuddin Rabbani, but also turned public rebellion against the central Afghan Govt.
The first of such moments began in 1978, in the province of Nuristan, located on the Pakistani border, which soon spread throughout the country in the shape of civil war. This was the Q-turn, which later brought the situation to catastrophe in Afghanistan. This grouping was an important opportunity for opponents of Soviet expansion, who soon rushed to support this grouping and called them ‘freedom fighters’. These freedom fighters, locally known as Mujahideen, were
openly supported by the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. And this situation led the Central Govt. of Kabul to find resources to defend itself, and that was on the doorstep of Moscow, which already was increasing its influence among the ruling party of Afghanistan. This engagement soon resulted in the closer relationship between Russia and Afghan ruling party, with the signing of a formal friendship and cooperation treaty between Kabul and Moscow. This accord, which was signed in December 1978, gave a legitimate right to Soviet deployment in the case of Afghan request. After this accord Soviet military assistance increased and the PDPA regime became increasingly dependent on soviet military equipment and advisers, and finally in 1979 the first battalion of the Russian army landed in Afghanistan. According to the treaty, this move was considered legitimate by Moscow, but the international community strongly criticized it and called this an invasion. However this was going to be the practical part of the long, bloodiest war which many call was part of the greater ‘game’ between interest of superpowers, fought on Afghan land.
From Moscow’s point of view the intention of this move was to back the pro-Russian regime in Afghanistan, but many observers said this was just an excuse for Russia to reach the Indian Ocean and also, if not occupy, at least to influence the oil rich countries of the Gulf. Taking the peaceful Islamic revolution in Iran [in 1979], and its aggressive policy toward the West, into account, it was really a matter of concern from the western point of view, since Iran easily could have joined the Russian bloc.
These concerns easily united many countries against Russia, which potentially would be in danger in case of Russian expansion toward Indian Ocean, who were in first hand Pakistan, Saudi Arabia United States and some other western countries.
But if the comment of Zbigniew Brzezinski ‘The Advisor of the President of United States [of that time] Jimmy Carter’, taken into account, the US had a greater reason for backing this alliance against Central Govt. of Kabul, and later the Russian occupation in Afghanistan.
Brzezinski, who played a fundamental role in crafting US policy, says it was in the US’s interest to involve Russia in a war which couldn’t be won. However Mujahideen was part of this larger strategy of there secret operations. Brzezinski proudly recalled these following words in an interview with ‘Le Nouvel Observateur’ newspaper later:
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap ."The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire."

Implication

Nevertheless, the intention of foreign support or their involvement in years of civil war in Afghanistan, the most painful reality of the current day is that the suffering people of this country are afraid of facing a new chapter of bloodshed in the country. During this more then two decades of civil war in Afghanistan, thousands of Afghan have already lost their lives, while millions have been injured and more than 5 million people had to flee the country to be able to save their lives.
According to many observers, these concerns of the Afghan people were unfortunately already knocking on the door since the potential fire of civil war had already started burning from the same location as it had started in 80s.
Interestingly not only the beginning point of the rebellions are similar with those in 1980s, but their method of regrouping, slogans, aims, re-arming, dress up, outlook of fighters, language in use also the same.
Many experts criticize the way of fighting-back of the Central power, which they say is similar to those in the 1980s of the Russian army against Mujahid groups. According to them, instead of maintaining secrecy or opening meaningful dialog for a peaceful solution, the practice on the ground is the US’s widely criticized tactic to crackdown against its enemies ‘with use of heavy artillery’. Critics say, Vietnam, and the recent history of Iraq is, are the two latest examples of bloody outcomes of such methods, and it will be a serious mistake to continue this policy.
The Pakistani President General Pervez Musherref, even draw the darker picture of the current conflict, if it has not dealt in appropriate way on timely manner. In his speech in Brussels in September 12, 2006, President Musherref warned, that the Taliban struggle could easily attract Pashtuns from both side of the border, which will mean a bigger catastrophe for the region ever it has seen. However there are some dialogues that seems underway by the international community to find the most effective solution.
According to unofficial outcome of meeting of High Level officials of NATO-Nations in Warsaw in September 9, 2006, to increase the presence of forces from Muslim nations ‘such as Turkey’ in fighting forces in Afghanistan, is among those being considered. But many observers doubt about the outcome of such intention, since the result of such a move could be more harmful then its benefits. They say in a case of Afghanistan and Iraq, this only will harm the reputation of Turkish forces among Muslim communities. Such an attempt may potentially lead Taleban militants on the ground and those who feel sympathy to their ideology to regard ‘Ankara’ as a part of greater enemy, and it would block the use of the ‘Ankara card’ in the future such disputes.
But the history of Afghan wars show that for any kind of affective solution in the country, the active participation of other two regional actors ‘India and Pakistan’ is highly important. It seems that currently Pakistan uses the Taleban card only as a method of protection against any possible threat by increasing activities of its long lived opponent India in Afghanistan.
And most recently Islamabad also claims Indian involvement behind of insurgency in its Baluchistan province-, which recently sparked after murder of prominent Baluchi Leader Nuwab Akbar Khan Bugti. His assassination being condemned by some of high level Afghan officials, which not only regarded by the Pakistani Govt. as an open interference in internal issues of Pakistan, but some regional experts found it, ‘an unfortunate move’ toward regional peace and security.

Conclusion

It’s almost 5-years after the Taleban regime was brought down by US-lead coalition forces in Afghanistan, after findings which indicated the link of Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist network El-Qaida behind the 9/11 attacks on the US.
These operations against Osama and its protector ‘The Taleban regime’, is regarded as the ‘liberation of Afghan people’ by the United States. But despite the falling down of the Taleban regime, the current situation hardly reflects the real liberation in practice, since bloodshed is increasingly expanding in Afghanistan, especially in western parts of the country. The method of fight-back of international forces against this insurgency is raising many questions, since it is resulting increasingly in a disappointing and discouraging manor, with more bloodshed and more insurgency.
Many observers began to compare this situation with those in 1978, when the protest of a small group with in the name of Islam, in Nuristan province, ‘bordering town with Pakistan’ spread throughout the country in a matter of days, which led to decades of bloodshed in the country.
Regardless of factors and actors of that time, the current situation also not much different than 1978, insurgency and its methods are increasingly threatening the security in Afghanistan. And involvement of regional powers could lead this situation to catastrophe. From this point of view the recent comment of Pakistani President General Musherref also seems highly important. In a situation like this, the most affective solution is the dialogue, with the participation of all parties including those who are considered as ‘lighters’ of the current insurgency. Unless the roots and the reasons of problems have not been addressed, no force could change the situation with artilleries and bloodshed. If it were the solution, then the US wouldn’t have lost the war in Vietnam, and Russian in Afghanistan. The situation in Afghanistan is more serious, since not only ideologies and nationalism, but in many cases poverty also could be a pushing factor for the people to get involved in serious crimes. If conflict isn’t stopped in time, it could spread throughout the region. Today, opposite of two decades ago, neighboring countries in central Asia with its huge rich natural resources are ruled by the leaders with little experience and military powers.

Muhammad Tahir is a Prague-based writer and author, specializing in Central/South Asia and Afghanistan.