Turkish Perception: "NATO is a Credible Military Alliance"
Presenting the keynote address, Ambassador Akinci reminded the gathering that the Indian Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 had a profound effect on Afghanistan. He said that we have to first ask the question as to why bother about Afghanistan? Why should NATO or any other institution be involved in Afghanistan? Would it not be wise to leave Afghanistan alone? The answer is very simple. You can leave Afghanistan alone but Afghanistan will not leave you alone. NATO is in Afghanistan because it is the only credible military alliance where interoperability amongst its members and armed forces has been achieved long ago. Moreover, NATO forces have the ability to operate as a single military apparatus. Unlike several international military operations, NATO has a single chain of command which is important for military operations. If you look at UN operations in Africa, they have dispersed and left whenever they faced a stronger enemy force. Afghanistan's strategic location affects all parts of the world in different ways. NATO is in Afghanistan for its own selfish reasons.

Ambassador Akinci said that Afghanistan's history tells us that there is a sense of common Afghan identity. Afghanistan is a country that can be ruled only by consensus and not by majority. Foreign intervention in Afghanistan will always breed reactions. Despite the positive developments in Afghanistan in the past few years, recent events indicate that overall security situation continues to be critical. Recent months have witnessed increase in suicide bombings and roadside attacks which were never seen in Afghanistan before. Suicide bombings is the most deadly warfare that needs to be prevented. We have to find ways to prevent such attacks. On the other hand, opium economy is flourishing in Afghanistan. Afghan opium continues to poison the youth of the world. Economic recovery with tangible results is yet to come. Afghan problems eventually should be solved by Afghans themselves. We should not impose our lofty solutions on Afghanistan. Turkey has historical and close relations with Afghanistan. Turkey in the past had trained the Afghan army and also trained Afghan administrators as well. Turkey has played a crucial role in Afghan reconstruction, training of Afghan army and police forces. More than one thousand Afghan forces have till date been trained by Turkey. Over a million dollars have been allocated by Turkey to fight narcotics trade. Turkey will also be providing funds for development projects in Afghanistan. Turkey will undertake all efforts to provide assistance and training for developing human resources and political institutions in Afghanistan.

For several reasons, NATO presence in Afghanistan has to be a success. We have to succeed in Afghanistan and we have to decide what is to be done for that. Stability has to be brought in Afghanistan and that should be enduring. Necessary state apparatus have to created for good governance. Economic development has to be ensured along with eradication of opium trade. Close economic cooperation of Afghanistan with neighbouring countries has to be ensured.

The US View: "NATO is Winning in Afghanistan"
Mr. Joel Ehrentreich, First Secretary, in the US Embassy said in his presentation that the stakes for NATO and the international community are huge with regard to Afghanistan which is at the centre of global war on terrorism. A failure in Afghanistan would only boost terrorism. He said that apart from ensuring security and stability in Afghanistan, other important tasks would include development of infrastructure, providing food and education, energy and medical supplies and also eliminating opium problem. He termed the opium problem as a double-edged sword which not only takes away valuable resources of the economy but is also a source of funds for terrorists and drug warlords. The stakes are equally high for Afghanistan's neighbours including India. Security in Afghanistan is essential to security throughout the region. Afghanistan's strategic position is critical for all of Asia which stands to gain or lose depending on the security situation in that country. In his prognosis for NATO in Afghanistan, the US diplomat said that the long-term prospects for success in Afghanistan are excellent. But it will not be easy and it will not be quick. First we have to consider the current situation in Afghanistan in the proper context. Despite its rich history, for all purposes, Afghanistan today is a new country and building a new country takes time. Considering where Afghanistan was five years ago, the prognosis could not have been bleaker. A hotbed of terrorism, civil war, lack of democracy characterised Afghanistan five years ago. Today, it is a liberated country with functioning democratic institutions. President Karzai has overwhelming support of the international community. Afghanistan's democratically constituted parliament is functioning well. Economically, as President Karzai said at the UN General Assembly, per capital has increased, inflation has gone down, currency has stabilised and debt has reduced. However, there are many serious problems facing Afghanistan and NATO members.

The will of NATO and the international community to succeed in Afghanistan is strong. That the Taliban increased their insurgency this summer came as no surprise as coalition commanders had already predicted that. Deployment of NATO, eradication of opium production and good governance posed a threat to the Taliban and they were compelled to increase the insurgency. What is remarkable is that rather than a fatigue, we see a will towards a long term and sustained commitment on part of the NATO towards Afghanistan. Afghanistan is NATO's first priority and most important operation. There is a declaration signed between NATO and Afghanistan signed earlier this month which outlines a long term commitment. Given the impressive progress that Afghanistan has achieved in such a short time and given the will power of the Afghan people and the international community, the long term prognosis for NATO in Afghanistan is excellent. One has to acknowledge the serious challenges that would take years to overcome. NATO has to succeed by ensuring adequate resources to counter the Taliban who have no regard for human life. The battle against Taliban is going to be prolonged and NATO countries need will power to sustain casualties in the long term. While the security situation is fragile, NATO and the international community are winning in Afghanistan. NATO is taking the fight to the Taliban and they are winning. Although the media is portraying some sort of divisions within the NATO on Afghanistan, the truth is that the NATO countries are responding to calls for increasing troop strength in Afghanistan. Along with increase in NATO troops, the Afghan army continues to grow in size, experience and capabilities. The Taliban have lost all major fights and they have not gained any strategic advantage. The Taliban has its stronghold in southern Afghanistan but there are no indications that the coalition is weakening.

In the development sector, the work has just began and the international community must respond in terms of building schools, roads and other facilities that will increase economic output, promote general welfare and affect the daily life of Afghans. Donor countries are increasing their support for Afghan reconstruction. Social change takes time and will test the will of the international community. The victims of 9/11 were citizens of over three dozen countries. There have been number of terrorist attacks all over the world since then. However, the prospects for Afghanistan are bright and all the countries that have an interest in Afghanistan agree on this.

Lt. Gen (retd.) Shantonu Choudhry: "More NATO Forces Required"
I had recently visited Kabul, Bagram and Mazar-e-Sharif. During my visit, I interacted with the Chief of the Afghan Army and a number of Defence Attaches of several countries. Firstly, I would differ from Mr. Ehrentreich in that the history of Afghan problems does not start with 2001. It starts perhaps in 1979 or even earlier when USSR began its interference in Afghanistan. The problems increased during the Taliban regime which was aided by the ISI of Pakistan and CIA of USA. Several countries and organisations were involved in Afghanistan for their economic and strategic interests. The state of Taliban 2001 prior to Operation Enduring Freedom was much less from what they are today. This is the opinion of those who matter in Afghanistan. The opinion is that the Taliban have come back as a stronger force. They have about 12,000 strong paid armed forces and they are indulging in strategy of warfare and guerrilla tactics. Given that the Taliban operate in the largely Pashtun areas in south which are generally sympathetic towards them, a very large force is required to counter the Taliban. However, the US does not have that much troop presence in Afghanistan. Today the strength of coalition forces is around 35,000-38,000 of which 21,000 are US forces and the rest is comprised of forces from other countries. The ISAF has regional commands in Afghanistan and operates a number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) involved in development projects. The question is that how long will this commitment to stay in Afghanistan last? I feel that if Iraq had not happened, then the coalition forces and the US could have stayed on indefinitely to ensure peace in Afghanistan. However, the international forces including the US military is stretched. The US is looking forward for an exit strategy in Iraq. The US is set to pull out about 3000 troops from Afghanistan. Poland has promised about 1000 troops. The question is where will the required number of troops come from.

The Taliban tactics are changing very fast with use of IEDs and suicide bombings. The question to be asked is whether the domestic politics of the US will allow sustained presence in Iraq and Afghanistan given there are other issues such as North Korea and Iran are becoming serious. Historically, Britain has staying power but will they stay if they suffer greater casualties. There is talk of some kind of a deal between the Karzai government, other factions and the Taliban involving sharing of power. The ethnic divide is far more pronounced today particularly between the Tajiks, Hazaras and the Pashtuns. The differences between the ethnic communities could spark civil unrest in the future. In the highly intricate Great Game involving regional and external powers, I think that if the staying power of the NATO collapses due to domestic or reasons, then countries like India is going to be affected badly and the other countries that would be affected are the Central Asian republics. The only way the Taliban can be beaten is if the NATO forces continue to stay in Afghanistan and the US is able to provide more troops.

Interjection and Discussion
Mr. Indranil Banerjie explained that in recent months, NATO forces have been winning and mounting huge casualties on the Taliban while suffering small number of casualties themselves. Most of the apprehensions are about the future of Afghanistan's stability and security. In countries like Italy, Canada and Britain, there is lot of rethinking with regard to continuing their military presence in Afghanistan. So, long-term commitment remains a problem. The US continues to remain committed to Afghanistan but whether the Europeans will have a similar commitment is not clear. Therefore, if a deal is struck with Taliban as Gen. Choudhry mentioned, similar to Pakistan's Waziristan agreement, then I think that is the beginning of the end. Such a deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan would question the credibility of the international presence in Afghanistan. The success of economic development programmes is also doubtful even though huge amounts of money has been allotted to Afghanistan. One of the good thing about NATO military operations is that they are specific and pin-pointed as the public reaction of civilian killings in military operations has been very negative.

Maj. Gen (retd.) Vinod Saighal stated that he had predicted that the Taliban would come back as a stronger force. NATO and the US forces may not have a long-term staying perspective stretching to 20 years. The difference is that everytime a US soldier dies, he is the only child of his family whereas whenever a Taliban dies, he is just one of the six or seven siblings. The supply of Taliban is inexhaustible. Should the NATO withdraw from Afghanistan, there is nothing like the Northern Alliance to fill the vacuum. The Northern Alliance has been completely disbanded and disarmed under the demobilisation programme that took place mainly in the northern regions and did not take place in southern Afghanistan. We have to consider the possibility of a revival of the erstwhile Northern Alliance as a fallback option in case of NATO withdrawal.

Responding to Gen. Saighal's assertion, Gen. Choudhry said that the lead role in Afghanistan will have to be taken by the USA. Apart from that the Afghan National Army (ANA) could play a major role as it is seeking to integrate Tajiks and Pashtuns. If the ANA perceives itself as a national army then this problem could be resolved. However, the ANA is plagued by problems such as low pay and desertions etc. Mr. Ehrentreich responded by saying that the revival of Northern Alliance would be a return to the past which could lead to more problems. We can't expect the ANA to be fully functional as it was formed just three years ago. The US will stay as long as the Afghan people want. Once the Afghan people can look after their security and stability, then the international forces could leave. Gen. Ramesh Chopra said that with regard to the deal involving the Taliban, Afghan history indicates that agreements are never long-term. President Karzai has stated that the Taliban are regrouping and rearming in Pakistani territory. Why is that the US is not taking action to eliminate the Taliban hiding in Pakistan. Moreover, there is not significant attention being given to the drug problem which is in fact a source of funds for the Taliban.

Ambassador Akinci responded by saying that we cannot be pessimistic about the future of Afghanistan. With regard to the opium trade from Afghanistan which is reaching Europe, the European countries will have to boost their efforts to eradicate opium production in Afghanistan. Responding to Gen. Chopra's observation that Pakistan is the main problem, Mr. Indranil Banerjie said that General Musharraf is less afraid of the US today than he was five years ago. This is going to be a problem for the US in the time to come. Mr. Ehrentreich responded by saying that the Pakistani tribal territory along the border with Afghanistan has been a lawless area for decades and that there is no easy answer to the problem posed by the presence of Taliban and Al Qaida elements in Pakistan's tribal territory. Dr. Awwad of Al Arabia TV observed that the problem regarding drug production in Afghanistan is that even the UN had acknowledged that over 95 per cent of opium production had ended during the Taliban regime. However, after the Taliban was overthrown, opium production surged by 200 per cent making Afghanistan once again the largest opium producing country in the world. Another issue that needs to be looked in depth is the ethnic breakup of Afghanistan. This is the main crux of the problem because if the Pashtun majority is being dislodged from power in Afghanistan, it will naturally be sympathetic towards the Taliban.

ends