Crisisweb
Projects
Africa
Algeria
Central Africa
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Zimbabwe

Asia
Afghanistan / Pakistan
Burma/Myanmar
Central Asia
Indonesia

Balkans
Albania
Bosnia
Kosovo
Macedonia
Montenegro
Serbia

Issues
EU
HIV/AIDS
Terrorism

Latin America
Colombia

Middle East

Customise the Homepage
Subscribe to ICG newsletter

"U.S. forces have to stay in Afghanistan"
Comment by Nancy E. Soderberg, International Herald Tribune.


To win the peace

BRUSSELS Now that the United States has fought and won the war in Afghanistan, Washington and its allies face a task every bit as complex - winning the peace. Afghanistan must become and remain a safe, stable place, where nests of extremists plotting violence are no longer tolerated. When Hamid Karzai, the interim president, visited the United States recently, he sought assurances that a strong peacekeeping force would help him achieve stability where there is none – and that the force would include U.S. participation. He did not get those assurances, and that was wrong. As evidence of continued instability inside Afghanistan mounts, and support for an expanded mission grows at the United Nations, there is still time for George W. Bush to agree to provide U.S. troops to the peacekeeping effort.

Many of America's allies have volunteered to send troops to the International Security Assistance Force currently operating in Kabul. They should be encouraged to do so. But the world watches closely to see how seriously the United States is committed to international missions, and the world bases its judgments on whether U.S. boots hit the ground. The United States should announce now that it will join the international force once the campaign against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is over.

Vast American logistical capabilities would enable the international force to react quickly to crises. A U.S. presence would ensure that the United States has a strong voice on any future decisions regarding the mission and size of the force.

If instead Washington fails to commit troops and thus show commitment to the force's success, it risks placing a far greater burden on the United States if full-scale fighting and chaos in Afghanistan resume.

Bush came to office pledging to pull the U.S. military out of many international engagements. But from Bosnia and Kosovo to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, he has wisely concluded that America's interests are best served by honoring its commitments and following through on actions already begun. In Afghanistan the case is no different.

The 2.6 million active duty and reserve U.S. forces are far from stretched to breaking point by U.S. peacekeeping commitments, currently involving less than half of 1 percent of U.S. forces. Instead, American participation in peacekeeping leverages the involvement and leadership of other countries.

A decision on a new lead nation for the international force will be needed soon. Britain stepped forward to head it but intends to step down "no later than 30 April." The United States ought to work with the British to secure their commitment to continue as lead nation as long as the U.S. operations against Al Qaeda continue, despite the wrongheaded criticism that Prime Minister Tony Blair has received at home for the deployment. In return, the United States ought to make the commitment to assume the leadership, or at least a major role.

It is time to recognize that peacekeeping is part of the job of America's armed forces. Even if Bush takes the war beyond Afghanistan, he must keep U.S. troops engaged there for the long haul.

The writer, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, is vice president for multilateral affairs at the International Crisis Group. She contributed this comment to the International Herald Tribune.

Copyright © 2001 The International Herald Tribune



Home - About ICG - Afghanistan / Pakistan Menu - Publications - Press - Contacts - Site Guide - TOP - Credits



Back to the homepageBack to the Homepage
Latest Reports
"U.S. forces have to stay in Afghanistan"
Comment by Nancy E. Soderberg, International Herald Tribune.

Comment
18 February 2002
"Security and Cash for Afghanistan Right Away"
Comment by William Shawcross, The International Herald Tribune.

Comment
31 January 2002