AFGHANISTAN IS having what looks like a real – and certainly interesting – presidential election in the middle of the counter-insurgency war against the Taliban. President Hamid Karzai, who is seeking a second term, is in the lead but may not have enough support to win the first round on Thursday. He wants to gain a mandate for political talks with sections of the Taliban in an effort to split their forces. His opponents say he is ineffective and corrupt and cannot be trusted with that task. The 100,000-strong Nato force led by the United States also wants to use the election to take new initiatives towards a settlement.
There is a peculiar balance between peace and war, satisfaction and discontent in contemporary Afghanistan. On both sides of the conflict harder and softer opponents vie for dominance. Mr Karzai could not survive without international military and security support, yet he has proved adept at building and maintaining coalitions with regional warlords which could be developed into a more permanent and stable bloc if political talks succeed. Some of his supporters are wary about that strategy, as are hawks among the Nato forces who say talking to the Taliban is compromising with terrorism. Among the insurgents there are also groups favouring talks, but those who want to fight a war they think they are winning disagree, among them extreme Islamic fundamentalists with bases in Pakistan.
Civilians on both sides are similarly divided between pragmatists and militants. Many are driven by local, contingent factors such as speedy or slow access to justice, the presence of corruption, participation in the booming opium trade, attitudes towards Islamic fundamentalism and experience of atrocities by local and foreign troops. This makes Afghanistan’s conflicts complex. But despite the apparent military and political impasse there is a great propensity for a prolonged, deeper and more costly Nato involvement if political progress is not made. Most European governments involved do not have the stomach for that, and US president Barack Obama is taking a large risk by committing himself to greater US troop deployments for a military victory.
Much therefore hangs on the elections producing an outcome capable of being translated into political progress. Politics must be put in the foreground if a sustainable agreement is to be reached with the Taliban. They are a diverse force, which cannot be defeated militarily under present conditions. They are well able to exploit popular discontent with the existing government, and to attract support from those who have had relatives killed or homes destroyed. Alongside the commitment of whoever wins this election to a political path, there needs to be an equal one by Nato governments. And increasingly events in neighbouring Pakistan dictate the pace of change in Afghanistan. The Pakistan army’s campaign against the Taliban in the Swat valley has resulted in a conventional military victory, but at the cost of enormous civilian suffering. Mr Obama and his allies need to think about this region as a whole if they are to deliver a political process capable of transforming the Afghan impasse.