A Western diplomat spoke carefully during an interview last month in Kabul, his words scrutinised not only by the journalist opposite him but also by his head office, which had insisted on listening in over a live link. The mouthpieces of Western policy in Afghanistan are being increasingly tightly controlled to ensure the right message is communicated ahead of the planned withdrawal of foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.
And the message is simple: There is progress in Afghanistan. If the message is clear, and firmly repeated, the situation on the ground is more complex.
The officials have been touting achievements, saying enemy attacks are down and the years of downward spiral have been reversed. But this assessment only bears up "if you count attacks in a very specific way," political analyst Joshua Foust said.
"In the latest Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] report, they report only 'complete' attacks - that is, incidents where things go boom - as 'enemy attacks,'" he said. "They pointedly do not record unsuccessful attacks," such as defused bombs.
That definition allows the Nato-led force to say attacks are down but can cause misleading statistics, the fellow at the American Security Project, a US-based think tank focused on transparency in defence politics, wrote in an e-mail interview.
Statistical methods became a point of contention in September when the United Nations drew a contradictory picture of the conflict's trends. The UN report, which counted all forms of violence, said Afghanistan was witnessing "considerable political volatility and disconcerting levels of insecurity" and calculated that security incidents were up 39 percent in the first eight months of the year compared with the same period in 2010.
The Isaf reported "enemy-initiated attacks 2 per cent lower" in the same period. Analysts said these discrepancies have led to a shift of focus towards debates over the relative merits of different quantification and statistical methods and away from the situation on the ground. As the international community holding a conference on the future of Afghanistan today in Bonn, Germany, the question becomes what to believe.
One Isaf official who requested anonymity said the military coalition has revised the mapping pattern it uses for its statistical overview in recent months to show progress. An Isaf spokesman denied the allegation.
Foust said the Isaf has to paint a rosy picture because "the US in particular is phobic about leaving any war in a state other than total victory." The security transition to Afghan forces has already started. Nearly 40,000 foreign troops are to leave by the end of next year and all 130,000 by 2014.
Not only foreign experts are concerned. Afghan observers also have reservations. Analyst Abdul Waheed Wafa said the campaign for a positive message by the government and the international community is being made "to justify the big narrative of withdrawal."
International organisations are funding surveys not so much to sound out public opinion but to form it and "to reduce the negative impacts of the withdrawal in the eyes of the people," he said.
A US-funded survey last month found that fewer people sympathised with the Taliban than before and 73 percent were satisfied with the government's performance is "bigger than a white lie," one lawmaker said. Even if the Taliban are losing public support, the trend would not necessarily translate into support for the government or approval of the international forces, said Wafa, a director at Kabul University's Afghanistan Centre.
"Young people have again started to leave the country, smuggling [themselves] to European countries" because of the lack of security and prospects, Wafa said.
In the meantime, there is at least anecdotal evidence that the Taliban is not losing as much ground as the statisticians indicate. In recent months, the insurgents have carried out a series of complex attacks in Kabul and other major cities and an assassination campaign targeting senior Afghan officials.
The US ambassador to Kabul brushed off a 20-hour siege on his embassy and Nato headquarters in September as "harassment" and a "statement of weakness" by the rebels.
Foust disagreed. "Quite the opposite," he said. "Large spectacular attacks are a sign of confidence, sophistication and competence on the part of the Taliban - not in their specific execution, which has been sloppy, but in their very existence, which has shaken normal Afghan people's confidence in the government and in ISAF." There may be other signs of decreasing faith in the security statistics.
The European Union recently decided to reduce the staff of its diplomatic mission by three-quarters, albeit temporarily. Deputy Ambassador Luc Vandebon said the decision was made for a renovation, but at least two Western diplomats disagreed, saying staff was being moved for security reasons. One said that by pulling out its civilians for their own safety while the international community was claiming improved security for Afghans, the EU was giving "completely the wrong signal."
Comments
Comments are closed.