Urgency to stay the course in Afghanistan
M. Ashraf Haidari
June 6, 2010
In "Interpreting
Afghanistan" (Op-ed, June 1) H.D.S. Greenway makes many connections between
the Soviet experience in Afghanistan and that of the United States and its
allies there now, indicating that it may not be possible to win peace in the
country. The fact is, there are more fundamental differences than similarities
between the Soviet and NATO engagements: the former one of invasion, and the
latter of liberation.
The Soviets were fiercely resisted by the Afghan people, while NATO is
overwhelmingly urged to stay the course to help rebuild Afghanistan. Recent
polls, for example, show that more than 70 percent of Afghans continue
supporting an international presence in Afghanistan.
Greenway’s comment that the Afghan “government in a box’’ came “damaged’’ in
Marja hits a key point but does not reflect the complexity of the issue. A
government cannot simply be propped up and immediately be successful. Just eight
years ago, our state institutions had long ceased to exist, and we had to start
the state-building process practically from the ground up.
While rapid success is unrealistic, conditions have significantly improved
for Afghans, who do not oppose the government but want it to work better. Thus,
our government must be assisted to regain the lost ground by building
institutional capacity to deliver on the basic expectations of the Afghan
people: protection from violent extremism, a livelihood, and the rule of law.
But I agree with Greenway that institutional extremism in Pakistan remains a
grave threat to Afghanistan and to world peace and security. Focus must be put
on dismantling the extremist institutional infrastructure in Pakistan.
M. Ashraf Haidari is the political counselor of the Embassy of Afghanistan in
Washington .
Back to Top
