news details |
|
|
| 5,000 dollars per NATO soldier a month | | | NEW DELHI | FEB 23
NATO forces in Afghanistan continue to face many a hardship. It is a different story that each NATO soldier costs an average of 5,000 dollars a month to maintain in Afghanistan, while the average ANA (Afghan National Army) soldier takes home 60 dollars a month. A pay raise plus a more robust training program for ANA and ANP personnel would surely attract more Afghans to serving the national security force and, for those who are already part of it, reduce the high rate of desertion.
Will the resources spent on an expanded NATO and US military mission be replaced with a new strategy? A precise answer to this question is pretty difficult to seek in the prevailing uncertain scenario across Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in the lead-up to an anticipated Taliban spring offensive against the Afghan government, international assistance to the war-torn country has increased. The United States recently committed 10.6 billion US dollars, which includes 8.6 billion dollars to beef up the country's security forces. It will also contribute armored vehicles and light arms to the Afghan National Army (ANA).
The European Union has promised a 600 million euro (786 million US dollars) assistance package for Afghanistan for 2007-10. Th package will focus on three key priority areas: reform of the justice sector; rural development, including alternatives to poppy production; and health.
India will contribute 100 million dollars toward reconstruction. In addition, the US President George W Bush has decided officially to boost US forces in Afghanistan by delaying the departure of a 3,500-unit combat brigade that had been scheduled to return home this month. This will leave a record 24,000 US troops deployed in the country. Of these, about half operate as part of a 34,000-troop North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) peacekeeping force and the rest under separate US command.
From the very first day the Democrats took control of the US Congress, they declared that the US will refocus attention on Afghanistan and increase its military and non-military assistance to the country. Thus top party members Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi visited Afghanistan last month. Although this renewal of commitment to Afghanistan is welcomed, the overwhelming emphasis on winning peace by military means is not likely to succeed, as has been the case in the past.
Afghanistan's mounting problems cannot be solved by military means alone. It needs much greater assistance for reconstruction, development and improvement of governance. The problems are not purely home-grown. Sustainable peace in Afghanistan depends on the destruction of the vast terrorist support infrastructure in Pakistan and the arrest of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership hiding in that country.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda have operational bases in Pakistan's Balochistan and North-West Frontier Province, from where they plan attacks against Afghan security forces and Western troops. This raises the issue of whether more assistance largely spent on non-development priorities will actually help to improve the situation in Afghanistan. A study of donor policies over the past five years has convinced many analysts that if the international donor strategy concerning Afghanistan continues to operate on the same assumptions, there will be little reason to expect the security situation to improve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
