Afghans get the bombs, Pakistan the bucks

KABUL — There wasn't much to see, save for Hamid Karzai’s resplendent green-and-purple striped chapan, or coat, paired smartly with his trademark karakul hat, at an international conference on Afghanistan in The Hague on Tuesday.

And the most substantive discussions of the meeting of 70 nations, all eager to to affirm their commitment to peace and reconstruction in the beleaguered nation, were almost certainly behind closed doors.

The Afghan president's sartorial knack is nothing new to the millions of his compatriots watching a live broadcast of the three-hour plenary session, broadcast on the Sabaa national television channel.

Nor is his deferential manner when in the company of those foreign powerbrokers who, by and large, will determine his future as their head of state. Opening the conference, Karzai dutifully delivered a list of government achievements over the past seven years. His message was unsurprising: Much has been accomplished, challenges remain. Tactfully, he also welcomed the world’s fresh commitment to finding a regional solution to his country’s problems.

Karzai left it to those unrestrained by the rarefied atmosphere and courteous diplospeak to say what was really on Afghan minds: That President Barack Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan was wrongheaded, putting too much emphasis on military solutions and not enough on economic and financial aid, and reconstruction; and that the billions of dollars America was paying yearly to help reconstruct Pakistan’s infrastructure was filtering through to elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and being used by Pakistan to destabilize Afghanistan.

As Mohammad Mansoor, a recent graduate from the law faculty of Balkh University, watching the conference proceedings from faraway Kabul put it: “In this strategy, the message to Afghanistan was bombs and bullets. For Pakistan, it was money. It should have been the other way around. If America has decided that it should split the aid for counterterrorism between Afghanistan and Pakistan, they should split the bombs and bullets as well.”

Afghanistan Daily, one of the country’s most influential newspapers, had already made its position clear with a blistering editorial on March 28: “Pakistan has once again managed to sway America in its own interests … . Pakistan has raised the Taliban like its own child, and has used Al Qaeda to destabilize the political situation in Afghanistan. But America is paying $1.5 billion yearly for the reconstruction of Pakistan’s infrastructure.”

Shukria Barakzai, a prominent member of the Wolesi Jirga, the lower house of Parliament, said: “The main focus of this plan for Afghanistan is on military solutions. Afghanistan needs economic and financial aid, reconstruction. There is a question that needs to be answered here: what kind of Afghanistan is America supporting?”

Meanwhile, back at The Hague, Karzai was followed by a long line of dignitaries, from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to the foreign minister of Bangladesh. Iran and Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbors, also stepped up to affirm their commitment to peace and reconstruction in the beleaguered nation. Iran’s presence in particular was heralded as a breakthrough in regional cooperation, although Tehran finely calibrated its enthusiasm by sending its deputy foreign minister rather than the top diplomat.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton carried the central message of the conference, which amounted to a sales pitch for the U.S.'s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, billed as a  “Comprehensive Strategy in a Regional Context.”

The meeting in The Hague was, afterall, an attempt to wring a renewed commitment on Afghanistan from America's increasingly reluctant allies, who have been plagued with a global financial meltdown and skeptical populations that wonder whether the war is worth the cost in blood and treasure.

Obama’s strategy, revealed on March 27, generated a great deal of head scratching and chin-wagging in Kabul over the weekend. While Obama commands a vast reserve of good will and tolerance both from Afghans and the international community, many were perplexed by the new program, which seems at times overly detailed and at others deliberately vague.

Everyone from think-tankers to diplomats to politicians was talking about the initiative at a Kabul reception Saturday night.

“Am I wrong in thinking that Obama’s grand strategy is just much, much more of the same thing?” said a well-known Canadian journalist, who has spent several years in Afghanistan.

The outlines of the strategy were clear enough: more troops for Afghanistan, more training for the Afghan security forces, and more civilian advisors to help get Afghanistan on its feet.

For Pakistan, on the other hand, there was that whopping $1.5 billion annual fund for development, provided that the Islamabad government takes steps to curb terrorism and to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda.

Bruce Reidel, one of the key advisors on the new strategy, spoke at a Washington press briefing immediately after Obama’s speech.

“The combination of … aggressive military operations on the Afghan side, and working energetically with the Pakistani government to shut down these safe havens, creates the synergy which we hope will then lead to their destruction,” Reidel said.

The prospect of additional “aggressive military operations” is not an easy one for Afghans to swallow. More fighting all too often means more casualties among Afghanistan’s civilians, an issue that has caused bitter squabbling between the government of Afghanistan and the international forces.

But Karzai has deemed the plan “better than expected” and told a press conference on March 28 that Obama had his full support. “I am in full agreement with the new strategy announced. It is exactly what the Afghan people were hoping for, and were seeking. Therefore it has our support and backing,” he said.

Optimism exists on the ground in Afghanistan, also. Several observers welcomed the enhanced resources being given to Afghanistan’s fighting forces (Obama pledged an additional 4,000 troops to train the Afghan National Army and Police).

“Finally the Americans have realized that a well-equipped, strong army is the best defense for Afghanistan’s government and territory,” said Abdul Hamid Mubarez, political expert and the head of the Afghan National Journalists’ Association.

While Afghans might feel that Pakistan got the better of the Obama strategy, U.S. military officials seem intent on making sure that Islamabad does not escape responsibility for mischief-making in the region.

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN on March 27 that “there are certainly indications” that elements within Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) were supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

The same day, General David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, told PBS’ “Newshour” that the ISI’s apparent support for militants could “be very damaging to the kind of trust that we need to build.”

This was exactly what Afghans wanted to hear: they have been insisting for decades that their own security problems have roots in neighboring countries.

“Iran and Pakistan have been interfering in Afghanistan for the past 26 years, and have brought us to this tragedy,” Mubarez said.

Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi contributed to this report.

 More Dispatches on Afghanistan:

Afghanistan troop surge costly

Karzai's back

Death, the life, for downloading