U.S. intends to help Afghani government to be stronger: U.S special envoy in Pakistan and Afghanistan

Trend News: Right before the upcoming presidential elections in Afghanistan Taliban has become more active. Can Taliban provocations evolve any problem to the election process and what do you expect from these elections?

Richard Holbrooke: First of all, we're fighting the Taliban because they are part of an integrated relationship with al-Qaeda, the people who attacked us on 9/11 and who have said they want to do it again. If Taliban renounce al-Qaeda and wish to participate in the political life of the country, either as individuals or as groups, they're welcome.

Talking about election, I'm concerning that Afghanistan's closely watched presidential election next week may have a muddled result. There'll be disputes, as there are in American elections. The process will take a while. Thousands of outside observers will be in Afghanistan to assess the vote, but that some level of disagreement about the results is still likely. Will there be challenge to the elections there are in every other democracy? I think we should assume those.

I don't know what people believe after the elections. But elections have a cleansing effect. They have a reaffirmation of legitimacy if they are free, fair, transparent, and inclusive.

The United States supports the reintegration of people who have fought with the Taliban into Afghan society provided them, one, renounce al-Qaeda, two, lay down their arms and renounce violence, and three, participate in the public political life of the country in accordance with the constitution. The vast majority of the people fighting with the Taliban are misguided rural youths without jobs. That's why we're increasing our agricultural effort.

Q. The United States wants to develop a new strategy to fight Taliban in Afghanistan. What are the differences between this new strategy and the old one? What are the specific features of this document?

A. If you're asking what we've inherited, the U.S. strategy was to eradicate the poppy crops and all that did was punish the poppy farmers and didn't cut the Taliban finances. The U.S. spent hundreds of millions of dollars that weren't worth it. This is an agriculture country. Afghanistan used to export grapes, raisins, pomegranates, even wheat. All that was destroyed when the Soviets invaded…. We're going to refocus on that. Give jobs to rural young men which will take them away from the Taliban.

We're going to help the government get strengthened. The United States was in effect weakening the government it was trying to help. We've sent 21,000 troops - 4,000 trainers, 17,000 combat - into the south to retake the south from the Taliban. The early indications of those operations are very positive, though it's too early to declare victory.

It was important to be clear about what our national interests are, and that the continued relationships between al-Qaeda and the various Afghan and Pakistani insurgent groups merited ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and more. You know, the military part of this struggle with American troops is not an open-ended event. But our assistance, our civilian assistance is going to continue for a long time.

I would say this about defining success in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We'll know it when we see it. I don't think it's accurate to say that we are committed to waging a war in Afghanistan until Afghanistan is a perfect democracy … nor would we expect people to believe such an unrealistic commitment.

But we are committed to fighting there until we are secure from terrorist attacks launched from there and until the region is secure from the danger of nuclear terrorism and other forms of destabilization.

However, I was eager to reach some level of measurable success because I had been feeling pressure from lawmakers on Capitol Hill. We all feel the impatience and pressure of the American public and the Congress, which legitimately wants to see progress.

Q. Operations in the Waziristan province in Pakistan still continue and Taliban hasn't been destroyed yet. Do you believe it is possible to destroy them through the military operations? What kind of other steps must be taken?

A. Actually, there were signs of disarray within the Taliban in Pakistan following the apparent death of the group's leader in a missile strike. The end of Baitullah Mehsud, as we all know, is a very big deal. Baitullah Mehsud was sort of like an independent subsidiary of Al Qaeda.

I think US should be focusing on issues such as anti-corruption, a national amnesty program and improving governance at regional and local levels - all of which he identified as vitally important in an overall counter-insurgency effort. US working on such issues, but until the election legitimizes the government, whoever wins, we have had to focus on that.

Q. Do you believe the Shanghai Cooperation Organization plays its role in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

A. I don't think so. Actually, one of the members of this organization - neighboring Iran played a vital role as well in Afghanistan's continued success. In the past Iran has provided weapons to some groups inside Afghanistan. We are completely aware of the Iranian factor. They are a factor, and to pretend they're not, as was often done in the past, doesn't make much sense.

/Trend News/