Trapped in Afghan quagmire

NEW YORK - Afghanistan, one of the few countries in Asia never fully colonized by any foreign power, is turning out to be a political and military quagmire for Western military forces.

The ouster of the rigidly repressive Taliban regime in Kabul has brought relatively little peace and stability to a country embroiled in war for over 22 years.

Since the aerial bombardment of Afghanistan began last October, the United States has kept its casualties to a minimum because American troops have been fighting a 21st century war from the safety of state-of-the art fighter planes against an enemy armed mostly with 19th century weapons.

Having learnt its lessons in a disastrous ground war in Vietnam where it lost over 58,000 troops, the US has vowed to avoid any commitment of ground troops in future military interventions overseas. Since then, however, the US has lost 254 soldiers in military skirmishes in Lebanon, 148 in the Gulf War, 29 in Somalia, 23 in Panama and 18 in Grenada.

The US-led NATO military bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 did not produce a single US casualty in combat because all of the fighting was done with flying machines.

Militarily speaking, the successes of Yugoslavia have been repeated in Afghanistan-despite the hundreds of civilian killings in and outside Kabul either because of faulty intelligence or "precision bombs" going astray.

Conscious of military risks in a country where political loyalties could be switched in the middle of a battlefield, the US has clearly refused to take part in the UK-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) currently maintaining the peace in a virtually lawless Kabul.

The interim head of Afghanistan, the strongly pro-American Hamid Karzai, visited Washinton last month to make a strong case of beefing up ISAF and for the creation of a new Afghan army. President Bush was equally strong in his response: An Afghan army, Yes. American ground troops, No, he told Karzai.

As anticipated, the multinational ISAF is now in danger of being caught in a crossfire between feuding Afghan warlords.

Created by the Security Council in late December, ISAF consists of about 4,500 troops from some 18 countries, including Austria, Bangladesh, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Jordan, the Netherlands and Turkey.

Britain has said that at the end of its six month mandate in June, it will hand over ISAF leadership to Turkey. Last week, British troops, numbering about 2,000, came under hostile fire in Kabul.

The UN's Special Envoy in Afghanistan Lakhdar Brahimi has supported a proposal for an expansion of the existing ISAF force, probably to a strength of about 3,000.

But so far there have been very few offers for fresh troops because no country wants its soldiers to die in a renewed civil war in Afghanistan.

The battle between warlords is also threatening to destabilise the newly-created Interim Administration which is seeking a hefty $10 billion to rebuild the country.

The United Nations, which has expressed serious concern over the security situation in Afghanistan, also wants the creation of a national army expedited.

The ongoing clashes between competing warlords demonstrate that peace in Afghanistan is still "fragile."

Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has proposed that the US too send in troops to join ISAF.

"Security is the basic issue in Afghanistan," he says. "Whatever it takes, we should do it. History will judge us harshly if we allow the hope of a liberated Afghanistan to evaporate because we failed to stay the course," he added.

At the same time, the leader of the opposition Democratic Party Senator Tom Daschle has, for the first time, expressed strong reservations about the US war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

"Clearly, we have got to find Muhammad Mullah Omar. We've got to find Osama bin Laden, and we've got to find other key leaders of Al Qaeda network. Or we will have failed," he warned last week.