Enlisting Islam against the Taliban

It is time the Obama administration sought support from Muslim countries for the war in Afghanistan. Building a new state there requires a legitimation that the USA simply does not have, says Tomas Avenarius in his comment

Barack Obama in Afghanistan (photo: AP) — Trampling Islam under infidel military boots? States like, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Indonesia or Turkey have greater credibility in Afghanistan than the US, says Thomas Avenarius

High in the hills around Kandahar in the heyday of the Taliban's rule, travellers to Afghanistan could make out tents housing Arab princes on hunting trips. The picnics with birds of prey on gloved fists were not only a testament to the Arab love of falconry. They also proved just how well Saudi, Kuwaiti and other princes and businessmen got on with Afghanistan's Islamists.

The fact that the Gulf rulers and their Islamic clerics maintained close links to the Taliban and paid them regular visits has since been forgotten.

In the meantime, US President Barack Obama has announced his strategy for tackling the present chaos in Afghanistan: 30 000 fresh US troops will be flown in at short notice, with the US bolstering Afghan security forces.

Wishful thinking on the Afghan army

The strategy is hardly convincing. Obama's insistence on starting withdrawal in 2011 is an open invitation to the Taliban to sit out the US offensive in the caves of Tora-Bora (time being the only resource the country produces, aside from opium). Rebuilding the Afghan army, too, is a clear case of wishful thinking.

photo: AP — "Islamic governments are all too fond of castigating global westernisation, while pointing out their own culture and population figures to demand a greater influence. And why not?" - ISAF troops on patrol in Kandahar

The end of Soviet occupation in 1989 and the ensuing disaster showed the measure of the Afghan military. The soldiers cast away their weapons as soon as they caught sight of the enemy. Obama's army model can only work if a state is built in parallel to which the soldiers feel some obligation. That, however, is not going to happen.

Yet Obama is right about one thing: his military cannot become engaged in nation-building in Afghanistan (only professional idealists still talk in terms of democratisation and rule of law).

Building a state there requires some form of legitimation – which the USA does not have to offer. Afghanistan is an Islamic country, and that means others have greater credibility on the ground: Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey. Such a Muslim involvement would rob the Taliban of their main argument – that infidel occupiers are trampling Islam under their military boots.

Support from the Muslim world

The Muslim states are of course already involved in rebuilding Afghanistan. They are financing clinics, building schools, and Turkey provides part of the NATO troops. Yet what they lack is genuine political influence.

The Saudis' old channels reach all the way to the Taliban leadership. In the 1980s, Riyadh financed the very anti-Soviet mujahideen that later mutated into the Taliban. And it was an Algerian middleman, Lakhdar Brahimi, who brokered the provisional end to the Afghan civil war.

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, second left, and other Saudi officials stand in front of a building damaged in a suicide attack, May 13, 2003 (photo: AP) — Giving certain Saudi Arabia more influence in Afghanistan entails risks of its own, writes Avenarius, but the Saudis are feeling the threat of terror and misunderstood religion themselves. Pictured: Al Qaida bomb site in Riyadh, May 2003

Admittedly, giving certain Islamic states more influence in Afghanistan entails risks of its own. It was radical Wahhabi preachers from Saudi Arabia who gave the mujahideen and later the Taliban their ideological weapons in the first place.

However, the Saudis are feeling the threat of terror and misunderstood religion themselves: Al Qaeda planted bombs in Riyadh too, prompting King Abdullah to adopt a more moderate line.

There would of course be a shift in priorities: Afghanistan would be a different place to the imaginary country of the 2001 Petersberg Accord. But the land of burqas and mujahideen is hardly going to become a paragon of democracy anyway.

Instead, more global Muslim participation might ease the situation with Pakistan. The country's regular skirmishes with Afghanistan are not a token of affection for the Taliban. They arise in fact from fear of neighbouring India – compensated by dodges into Afghanistan's backyard.

Islamic governments are all too fond of castigating global westernisation, while pointing out their own culture and population figures to demand a greater influence. And why not?

The West will not get Afghanistan under control on its own. And the Islamic states would have a chance to prove that they want to make a productive political contribution with reference to their culture.

Tomas Avenarius

Tomas Avenarius is a very experienced Middle East correspondent to the Süddeutsche Zeitung, based in Cairo.

Translated from the German by Katy Derbyshire

Qantara.de

NATO in Afghanistan
The Alliance and the Limits of its Strategy
The war in Afghanistan raises major challenges for the North Atlantic Alliance. The outcome of NATO and coalition troops' involvement in the battle against the Taliban and al-Qaida is questionable. An analysis by Timo Noetzel and Sibylle Scheipers

A New Strategy for Afghanistan
Lessons Learned from Iraq?
Obama's new US strategy on Afghanistan is forcing the European states to make decisions. If they want to increase their influence, they will have to fulfil the tasks they are already doing much more effectively. By Guido Steinberg

Interview with Rangin Dadfar Spanta
"Elections are a Milestone for the Afghan Democracy"
In an interview with Loay Mudhoon, the Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta calls for intensified reconstruction efforts, consideration of Pakistan's role in the problems facing his country – and the inclusion of Afghans in all military activities