Next year, the international troops will implement their long-planned withdrawal from Afghanistan – even if many questions remain unanswered. With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, a world collapsed. For the Americans, who suddenly realized that they were also vulnerable in their own country. But also for Afghanistan and the Taliban ruling there, who suddenly moved from the geopolitical periphery to the focus of world attention – with unpleasant consequences. As the USA suspected the masterminds of 9/11 in the country on the Hindu Kush and at the same time wanted to deprive the terrorist organization al-Qaeda of its safe havens, it launched an invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 with the help of an international military alliance. As a result, the United Nations commissioned the International Assistance Force (ISAF), with around 100,000 soldiers from 50 countries, to make the necessary military contribution to the reconstruction of the country. However, the Taliban and other insurgents fought back vehemently, especially in 2005 and 2006, whereupon the purely US mission “Enduring Freedom” was combined with the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Further troop reinforcements after 2008 were intended to create the conditions for the planned withdrawal from 2011 – after a three-year delay, this will actually happen next year.
The plan envisages the withdrawal of ISAF combat troops by the end of 2014. In order to avoid a power vacuum in the country, the Afghan government began taking responsibility for security itself a few months ago – corresponding training and preparations have been underway for years. Planning for the withdrawal of international troops is also underway, although this poses a logistical challenge and is causing the ISAF commanders some headaches. This is because there is no uniform plan for the withdrawal. While the Germans, for example, want to continue training Afghans and providing development aid, France wants to leave the country and become more involved in Africa. Italy, on the other hand, wants to keep 4,000 soldiers in Afghanistan, while the UK even wants to keep 9,000 soldiers there. The USA is thinking along similar lines: although it is ordering the majority of its troops back home, it wants to keep bases in the country and use drones to take action against suspected terrorists. The Americans are therefore currently negotiating with the government in Kabul about the future status of US troops in the country. A draft agreement to this effect has already been approved by the large tribal assembly, but at the time of going to press President Karzai had not yet given his approval. The Americans are primarily concerned with two air bases: Shindand in the west of the country and Bagram in the east. The former is located just a few kilometers from the border with Iran, can accommodate more than a hundred aircraft and is of great strategic importance after the withdrawal from Iraq. The second can even be approached by strategic transport aircraft and is presumably not uninteresting for the Americans in the direction of China, even beyond the current disputes in Afghanistan. Regardless of how many troops ultimately remain in the country, the withdrawal will take place at a time when al-Qaeda has been neutralized to some extent. Although the Taliban are active locally, they are more of a criminal problem than a military one. Nevertheless, they have long been thinking about their Afghanistan solution. President Karzai will therefore have no choice but to negotiate with the Taliban about the time after the withdrawal. A huge problem for the stability of the country could be the high level of corruption. Local warlords have established themselves as governors, police or secret service chiefs at provincial level and control the allocation of international aid funds by the state. Transparency would probably be the only way to expose these money channels. Fighting corruption and crime will be the task of the Afghan police. Despite broad international support, there is a lack of trainers. The situation seems better for the army, which has grown to a strength of 350,000 soldiers with a great deal of support. However, it too often lacks knowledge and skills, which is why the fighting against insurgents in the country is progressing more poorly than well.
As a result, the ISAF withdrawal is viewed with mixed feelings from many sides. This includes the withdrawing countries themselves: They will in any case order their combat troops, or at least the bulk of them, back to their home countries, but will be careful not to be the last to be bitten by the dogs. How the security situation will develop once the majority of ISAF troops have left the country is a great unknown and depends primarily on a clear political solution in the upcoming presidential elections. However, if we want to talk about the transformation of the country into a functioning democratic state, we have to think in terms of decades. The details of which successor missions will be launched and who will participate and how should therefore be carefully considered – but all those involved will once again have to take their cue from the USA.
