During his last visit to the White House President Hamid Karzai had made no commitment during his joint Press conference with US President Barak Hussain Obama about building of Afghani's own army. He has been flirting both with India and Pakistan regarding training of Afghanistan's National Army.
He was offered by Pakistan's Chief of Staff General Ashfaque Pervez Kayani the facility of Afghan Army's training in Pakistan. "It's easy and convenient both for Pakistan and Afghanistan to get training for Afghanistan's National Army in Pakistan", says Chief Spokesman of the armed forces General Athar Abbas. It takes over 6 months to train an infantry soldier and seven years to train a ranking major in Pakistan Army, General Athar says.
Having complete knowledge of the treacherous nature of Afghanistan's War-lords dominated politics President Hamid Karzai is perhaps fearful of a would be coup if he so decides to build an army. Afghanistan has the history of bloody coup d'etats. Afghanistan's national unity was evaporated when the lid of monarchy was removed by Sardar Daud in 1973.
That was the end of the game. Nur Muhammad Tarakai's short-lived "Sour Revolution" was followed by Hafizullah Amin's take-over and finally Babrak Karmal was brought to Kabul by Soviet panzers. Position today is not different than that of Babrak Karmal. He ruled Kabul with Soviet backing and Karzai rules war-ravaged Afghanistan with US-led Nato forces.
Karzai has been using issue of establishment of National Army merely as a diplomatic chip both with India and Pakistan. Pakistan is keen to train Afghan Army to have soft Western border. Indian leadership having larger designs for Central Asian Republics desires its fingers in the pie. Hamid Karzai being a very shrewd statesman is in real sense using his country as a cockpit to Asian region. He is sparing no single moment left unutilised in exploiting existing contradictions local disputes and geopolitical realities to his advantage.
His approach towards Afghanistan's national security is dominated by his sharp and canny attitude towards every aspect of his country's past history of disunity and disorder in the absence of foreign armies.
Both for Pakistan and the US-led Nato forces' commanders it's a major issue as to why Afghanistan having a pro-West government in Kabul never cared to build an army at least capable to defend its borders. At no stage American successive commanders opposed or objected to the building of Afghanistan's National Army.
How long the United States would spend over 3.6 billion dollars a month in Afghanistan, according to data provided by the Congressional Research Service recently.
According to Congressional Research Service, the average cost per month is calculated at an average 51,000 US troops in Afghanistan, but that number likely will go higher with the 68,000 troops the Obama administration already is planning on having in that country, and could double if President Barack Obama approved stationing of 40,000 more troops to the country.
The cost of sending one US soldier in Afghanistan for one year is 1 million dollars versus an estimated 12,000 dollars for an Afghan soldier, according to Steve Daggett, a specialist with the Congressional Research Service. Those numbers fall within the calculations that the Obama administration has been using. The Obama administration is calculating 1 billion dollars per 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan. Initially President Obama had pledged a troop surge in Afghanistan. But without a fundamental change in strategy, this may increase the sense of occupation and mire the United States in a war without end. Moscow deployed more than 150,000 troops at the height of its occupation of Afghanistan and failed to avoid defeat. A more realistic approach must start with redefining US goals, and distinguish between what is vital and attainable (disruption of terrorist networks) and what is desirable but best left for Afghans to undertake (transforming society).
In the absence of an Army or a formidable security apparatus one cannot foresee peace within Afghanistan. President Karzai has successfully used the inherent contradiction of Afghan society: the enmity between Farsibans of North and Ghilzai Pashtuns. An army has to be constituted from both the segments. Hitherto the Persian speaking allies of President Hamid Karzai are having the advantage of their monopoly over civil services and intelligence services.
But they cannot advance a demand that they alone can hold commanding positions within the Afghan proposed National Army. President Hamid Karzai has so far exploited this historic contradiction of Afghan society to the hilt. But being a very insightful player he has more then two hands to spin many global balls.
The US stated position to leave Afghanistan next year and President Hamid Karzai' s promise to give an Army to Afghanistan just appear trial balloons.
British government too is not depending over the reliability of an Afghan Army. For Brits absence of an Afghan Army remains a big question mark. Prime Minister David Cameron has spoken his mind, so the leadership of the Nato states.
The generals know that the Afghan army will not be up to the necessary level in terms of numbers and training until around 2014. It is premature to be certain what General Petraeuss strategy will be. It will be very hard to replicate the effects of the surge in Iraq that enabled him to reduce the level of bombings and killings there. While these circumstances continue to dominate regional scenario no one can offer a definite timeframe for the exit of foreign forces from Afghanistan. And this kind of situation suits leaders of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.