Former US ambassador in Kabul (April 2009-july 2011), Mr. Karl Eikenberry, warned that the revenue of Afghan National Army would reach $ 2.5 billion by 2014, while the cost of this security force would be about $ 7 billion annually. The question is, who will pay the difference? He believes that the Afghan National Army may break down or collapse.
“We believe that by the year 2014, just the sustainment cost of the army and police alone could be reaching $7 billion, and who's going to be paying that $7 billion? Well the Afghan national government by 2014 will probably be generating revenue of $2 billion to $2.5 billion, so there's a significant shortfall, and it will be incumbent then upon the United States and its allies to pay for those resource shortfalls.”
General Eikenberry also said there were concerns about the "political" reliability of the security forces, and whether their loyalty will be to the central government or to regional strongmen, like in the past.
General Eikenberry said there were four main issues the US-led coalition was confronting in its quest to hand responsibility for the country over to the Afghan government.
They are:
He also noted that the coalition would not be pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014, but would actually retain a sizeable military and aid presence to help the Afghan government.
"We hope that by the end of 2014, we achieve de facto sovereignty, with the Afghans having the responsibility for security with international support, that detention of Afghan citizens on the battlefield is entirely done by the Afghan government, that the Afghans are able to have more direct control over governance in their country," said he.
"Given the progress that's been made in this country over the last 10 years, I think it is possible to get there." (Oct 24, 2011 11:25pm [49]).
In my opinion, Afghan society has many types of deep-rooted conflicts: Ethnic, religious, language, political parties, and many other sub-conflicts. In each of these conflicts friends and foes may change roles in another conflict so that friends in one conflict are foes in another. Again and again, if one of these conflicts take back stage, another one comes into focus, being the fundamental conflict. The resurgence of a yet another conflict is also possible. Nobody, be they political parties, government nor non-governmental organizations and governments, were able to propose a solution for these different conflicts in order to define one nation or a solution, to give rights to, and make friends between, all ethnics and parties.
So there is no reason to stop the internal unrest, actually it is the above mentioned conflicts, that have lead to the present situation on Afghanistan. But for some foreigners the focus is now on the game changes after withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan (maybe 2014), where the new great game starts on the fate of the region.
"The great game is geo-strategic in nature," states Dr. M. Ehsan Ahrari, a professor of national security and strategy at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk USA. Other economists, however, contend that the fight for control in international geo-politics always revolves around natural resources.
The term "The New Great Game" first gained traction in the mid-90s as a result of the geo-politics attached with the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline. This game focuses on the vast amounts of unexplored energy reserves in the Caspian Sea, consisting principally of oil and gas. While the events unfolding in the region may seem like a battle to curb regional militancy, the underlying struggle is for the control and influence over trade routes and energy resources. Thus, the battle for control over Central Asia is well underway [50].
So, the fighting strategy in Afghanistan in the future would change from battle against the terrorism and drugs trafficking to the takeover of the geological resources og the country, a game in which right now Mr. Wahidullah Sharani, Mine Minister of the Karzai regime, trades some of the important mines like the large copper mine “Aynak” in the Logar province, and the iron mine “Hajigak” in the Bamyan province, and the oil and gas fields in the Northern area.
---
[49] http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/world/the-age/afghan-sovereignty-possible-not-probable/492849.
[50] By Farhan Reza, Osman Husain and M.H. Yousuf (http://treasure.com.pk/daily/new-great-game-20110721.html).
afgeopol@gmail.com
“We believe that by the year 2014, just the sustainment cost of the army and police alone could be reaching $7 billion, and who's going to be paying that $7 billion? Well the Afghan national government by 2014 will probably be generating revenue of $2 billion to $2.5 billion, so there's a significant shortfall, and it will be incumbent then upon the United States and its allies to pay for those resource shortfalls.”
General Eikenberry also said there were concerns about the "political" reliability of the security forces, and whether their loyalty will be to the central government or to regional strongmen, like in the past.
General Eikenberry said there were four main issues the US-led coalition was confronting in its quest to hand responsibility for the country over to the Afghan government.
They are:
- The continuing support within Pakistan for the Taliban, and the havens granted to insurgents;
- The ability of the Afghan security forces to provide security for their people;
- The economic stability of the country, particularly when the flood of coalition development aid begins to slow; and
- The ability of the government to crack down on corruption and govern for all Afghans.
He also noted that the coalition would not be pulling out of Afghanistan in 2014, but would actually retain a sizeable military and aid presence to help the Afghan government.
"We hope that by the end of 2014, we achieve de facto sovereignty, with the Afghans having the responsibility for security with international support, that detention of Afghan citizens on the battlefield is entirely done by the Afghan government, that the Afghans are able to have more direct control over governance in their country," said he.
"Given the progress that's been made in this country over the last 10 years, I think it is possible to get there." (Oct 24, 2011 11:25pm [49]).
In my opinion, Afghan society has many types of deep-rooted conflicts: Ethnic, religious, language, political parties, and many other sub-conflicts. In each of these conflicts friends and foes may change roles in another conflict so that friends in one conflict are foes in another. Again and again, if one of these conflicts take back stage, another one comes into focus, being the fundamental conflict. The resurgence of a yet another conflict is also possible. Nobody, be they political parties, government nor non-governmental organizations and governments, were able to propose a solution for these different conflicts in order to define one nation or a solution, to give rights to, and make friends between, all ethnics and parties.
So there is no reason to stop the internal unrest, actually it is the above mentioned conflicts, that have lead to the present situation on Afghanistan. But for some foreigners the focus is now on the game changes after withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan (maybe 2014), where the new great game starts on the fate of the region.
"The great game is geo-strategic in nature," states Dr. M. Ehsan Ahrari, a professor of national security and strategy at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk USA. Other economists, however, contend that the fight for control in international geo-politics always revolves around natural resources.
The term "The New Great Game" first gained traction in the mid-90s as a result of the geo-politics attached with the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (TAPI) gas pipeline. This game focuses on the vast amounts of unexplored energy reserves in the Caspian Sea, consisting principally of oil and gas. While the events unfolding in the region may seem like a battle to curb regional militancy, the underlying struggle is for the control and influence over trade routes and energy resources. Thus, the battle for control over Central Asia is well underway [50].
So, the fighting strategy in Afghanistan in the future would change from battle against the terrorism and drugs trafficking to the takeover of the geological resources og the country, a game in which right now Mr. Wahidullah Sharani, Mine Minister of the Karzai regime, trades some of the important mines like the large copper mine “Aynak” in the Logar province, and the iron mine “Hajigak” in the Bamyan province, and the oil and gas fields in the Northern area.
---
[49] http://www.optuszoo.com.au/news/world/the-age/afghan-sovereignty-possible-not-probable/492849.
[50] By Farhan Reza, Osman Husain and M.H. Yousuf (http://treasure.com.pk/daily/new-great-game-20110721.html).
afgeopol@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment