Remember This War?

Now the greatest military alliance in the world is hoping to transform Afghanistan's madness into some sort of normality. NATO now has 21,000 troops in its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — up from 9,000 in June — and will be adding thousands more by the end of the year, when it takes charge of security in the country's eastern sector. The reinforcements are coming primarily from the U.S., Canada, Britain and the Netherlands, though 33 other countries also contribute to isaf. (Around 10,000 troops under direct U.S. control will continue to hunt Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders in the wild reaches straddling the border with Pakistan, where the Taliban maintains bases.) There's a consensus among European political élites that Afghanistan isn't an Iraq; even left-wing governments believe the war there is legal and worth fighting to keep the country from reverting to a safe harbor for the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But amid new demands for peacekeepers in south Lebanon and a worsening situation in Afghanistan — at least 14 Canadian and British soldiers have been killed and dozens more wounded since the beginning of August — NATO countries are unlikely to make further commitments of troops and money, even if that's required to turn Afghanistan around. ISAF's mission is demanding, and getting more so. In late July it took control of the south, a historically neglected region where the Taliban is particularly strong, and it will be in charge of the whole country by the end of the year. "The insurgents are fighting in numbers and with a strength that we didn't anticipate six months ago," says Major Luke Knittig, an ISAF spokesman. Taliban forces, in disarray after coalition forces toppled them from power in 2001, are now able to operate in platoon-sized units of about 40 men, and sometimes larger, and are also employing tactics honed by insurgents in Iraq, including suicide attacks and roadside bombs. Foreign forces have suffered more casualties in the past year than at any time since 2001. After six British soldiers were killed in four weeks earlier this summer, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government hurriedly deployed an additional 900 reinforcements. In mid-August, a plan was announced to pull British troops out of some isolated posts in Helmand province. David Richards, the British lieutenant general now in charge of ISAF, says he will emphasize using his troops to create "zones of security." "I'm more likely to try to facilitate reconstruction and development than just fight," he says. "We can do more of that given our numbers." Perhaps, but the problem is that there are really two Afghanistans. One is the place Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush like to emphasize: where some 6 million people voted democratically last year for their new government and a diverse parliament now operates; where some 4.5 million refugees have been welcomed home from squalid camps in Pakistan and Iran; and where 5 million children now go to school, including girls, who were excluded by the Taliban. With that backdrop, the idea that foreign soldiers can provide a little added security while development projects and local security forces gain momentum does not seem far-fetched. But a much darker set of indicators is also at work. http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901060904-1376181,00.html

Note: http://www.time.com/tim...