The US Crusade on Afghanistan- Perspectives from Different Theories (original) (raw)

M I S S I O N I M P O S S I B L E : A F G H A N P E A C E T A L K S

The main argument of this paper is that desperate efforts by Afghan government and the international community to bring peace to Afghanistan through talks with Taliban are destined to fail mainly because of the complex nature of the war. It proposes state-building, long-term vision for military campaign against insurgents as well as more robust diplomatic, economic and limited military actions against state-sponsors of terrorists as alternatives to desperate efforts for peace talks.

The US State-building in Afghanistan: An Offshore Balance

Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 2018

The US policy in Afghanistan in the context of 9/11, under the broader rubric of the War on Terror (WoT), primarily was to topple the Taliban regime. Because the regime disagreed to comply with the US administra-tion's demand to extradite Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of the terrorist attack in the USA in 2001. However, the WoT project did not end with the collapse of the Taliban regime, but rather, it was transformed to a state-building project in Afghanistan. Why was the WoT project shifted to state-building, a project which has been in continuation for last 17 years? This article investigates the post-9/11 US policy in Afghanistan from the perspective of offensive realism. Particularly, it examines the causes behind the US policy shift in Afghanistan from the WoT to a state-building project and its continuity. The article argues that US state-building in Afghanistan has been driven by two major motivations: the first is to maximize security by securitizing itself from further terrorist attacks, and the second policy priority is to prevent other regional hegemons to emerge in South Asia. It further contends that through the Afghanistan policy, the US administration maintains an onshore balance against China and offshore balance against India.

Behind the Scene Dilemmas over Afghanistan

After 9/11 attacks, Bush Administration initiated " war against terrorism " to prevent al-Qaeda's use of the territory of Afghanistan as a base of terrorist activities and to make clear to Taliban leaders that the harboring of terrorist was unacceptable. On the other hand, this argument brings with various criticisms. It is argued that there are hidden purposes lying behind " war on terror. " It is just an instrument to legitimize intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 and to provide public support. At this point, it should be questioned why Afghanistan is important for the US as well as other powerful actors such as Russia and China. This paper shows how Afghanistan's strategic importance and the US's interests in the region shape the US's foreign policy towards Afghanistan and in this process how the concept of terrorism and failed state is used as a threat to security of the Western countries to justify this intervention. Afghanistan's geopolitical position has been crucial due to the fact that Afghanistan is situated between Central Asia and the South Asian and Middle Eastern states and it is a natural corridor of export from Central Asia to other countries. This paper argues that it is oversimplified to establish only linkage between terrorism as a threat and intervention in Afghanistan. By explaining hidden purposes such as rivalry for pipeline routes and competition to control in the region, the aims of great actors in the region, influences of intervention in Afghanistan as an open-ended war and questions over war on terror and Bush Doctrine will be analyzed in this paper.

AFTER 2014: AMERICAN POLICY, THE TALIBAN AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

Since time immemorial, peace in Afghanistan has always been absent.If ever peace made its presence, it becomes too costly for its inhabitants to afford.As time progressed its people developed the nebulous habit to cohabit with the elusive peace in the region.The bold and warlike character of the Afghans has always preserved them from being crushed by the despotic use of power by their chiefs or kings. Innovations are liable to be fiercely resented and opposed by the armed strength of the tribes concerned. The petty and selfish ambitions of the chiefs, tribal feuds and jealousies have always enabled an adroit ruler to maintain his authority. The circumstance in Afghanistan is identical since millenia. The present peril in Afghanistan is an outcome of an extended war amongst the Hamid Karzai-led Afghan government, Taliban including Haqqani, Northern Alliance, and petty or powerful warlords. Involvements of predatory foreign forces stretching the battle beyond limit. Combinedly all these present tough challenges for future peace in Afghanistan. This article deals with three principal questions - What will be the future situation of Afghanistan after 2014, whether Afghanistan would be the launching pad of international terror attacks, and whether War against terror in Afghanistan could be avoided?

India, Afghanistan and the ‘End Game’?

New Delhi, in recent times, has been confronted with some hard choices in Afghanistan. A decade-long policy of providing huge humanitarian and developmental assistance, which has accrued tremendous goodwill among the Afghans, is now perceived to be in imminent danger of being disrupted and overwhelmed by the United States (US) decision of conditional withdrawal. This is in addition to the recently shifting discourse of negotiating with the Taliban, which is interpreted as an upsurge of Pakistani influence in Kabul. The choice for India was never whether it should stay engaged in Afghanistan or not. Even in the face of repeated onslaughts on its personnel and mission, India was committed to staying the course. However, decision making to that extent has become even more difficult given that the West appears to be in a hurry to bring its ominous gamble in Afghanistan to a close. It is thus timely to take stock of India’s role and interests in Afghanistan. It is also useful to explore various policy options in the evolving scenarios of limited downsizing or even complete withdrawal of international troops from the conflict-ridden country.

United States, Taliban and Fundamentalism in Afghanistan: The Growing Instability in Afghanistan

This paper aims to elucidate the causes of perpetual instability in Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. It argues that the foreign powers are responsible for “rolling back the stability” and making it a “zone of instability”. United States and Soviet Union, ‘the dancing evils of Cold war’, propel the Afghan descent towards extremism. United States produced so called Mujahedeen and freedom fighter and equipment them with weapons for their strategic interest (to roll back Soviet Union). After winning its Strategic Interest, United States estranged from these Freedom Fighters and remained a silent spectator. When these freedom fighters launched their full-fledged extremism and even not spared United States, United States act as a “wounded bear” and fought the longest war of its history without any conclusion and finally withdraw its NATO forces ‘by force not by choice’. This paper conclude that it is now the responsibility of neighbouring states like Pakistan, Russia, China and India to take comprehensive steps to stabilize Afghanistan and to made security alliances to make Afghanistan a zone of peace.

Global Terrorism Mid-Year Review 2016

Counter Terrorism Trends and Analysis , 2016

In the first half of 2016, the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) dominated the global threat landscape by mounting attacks in North America, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Asia. At the forefront was IS’ spokesperson, Abu Mohammed al-Adnani, who directed and inspired attacks worldwide, including those which took place during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. On 24 July 2016, a suicide bombing attack took place in the south German town of Ansbach. The attacker was a 27-year-old Syrian man who faced deportation to Bulgaria and who had detonated the device after being refused entry to a music festival. Investigations revealed that the suicide attacker had pledged allegiance to IS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in a video found on his mobile phone. IS has since claimed responsibility for the attack. In May 2016, in an audio message purportedly from al-Adnani, the spokesman declared Ramadan a "month of conquest and jihad." He announced: "Make it, with God's permission, a month of pain for infidels everywhere" (Mowat 2016). The “Ramadan jihad” of IS killed at least 800, mostly Muslims, across five different continents (Drury 2016). Some of the attacks included those in Orlando (US), Nice (France), Bavaria (Germany), Istanbul (Turkey), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Kabul (Afghanistan), Mindanao (Philippines), Puchong (Malaysia), Solo (Indonesia), Medina (Saudi Arabia), Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. The spate of IS attacks were most intense during the last week of Ramadan when IS carried out an attack on Istanbul Airport, killing 45 people, detonated a truck bomb in Karrada, in Baghdad, killing 290 people, and carried out a suicide bomb attack in the vicinity of the Prophet’s mosque in the Saudi Arabian city of Medina, the second holiest site in Islam, after Makkah.