Afghanistan and war against terror: 10 years on
Commentary ( 12 )
The “war on terror” was launched 10 years ago, on Oct 7, 2001. It represents a battle against terrorism, extremism and global geopolitical adversity seen to oppose democracy and freedom of choice.
In the intervening years, however, the war has produced various unintended consequences that threaten personal freedom and other liberties enjoyed by progressive societies worldwide. Stringent inspections delay cargo and personnel at border crossings. In many cities, cameras constantly monitor the movement of vehicles and civilians alike. Government wiretapping and surveillance procedures have been expanded. Bank transactions are scrutinized as never before. Airport security measures are annoying and sometimes even humiliating. In many ways, such intrusions represent a victory for terrorists.
An early casualty of the War on terror was Afghanistan. During much of the time since October 2001, Afghans have seen little improvement in their lives and business conditions. Ten years on, U.S. foreign policy labels Afghanistan a “failed state,” especially regarding security, refugees, and legitimacy of the state.
As the United States prepares an acceptable exit strategy, Afghanistan faces much risk and uncertainty. Divided by religious and political strife, the country’s per-capita income remains among the lowest worldwide. Adult literacy is below 28% and infant mortality is high. Following 30 years of war, Afghanistan’s social, institutional, and commercial infrastructures are in a decrepit state.
The World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO) have pointed to constraints that discourage corporate investment in Afghanistan: crime and disorder, inadequate energy and transport systems, and insufficient access to finance. However, experts also suggest that, with appropriate local knowledge and collaborative efforts, companies can succeed in Afghanistan. Success requires investments in education and training, creation of networks and infrastructure, and open-mindedness and flexibility towards the unexpected. Firms with significant experience in troubled regions are most likely to succeed.
Recent changes in Afghanistan have produced significant potential opportunities for early investors, especially in infrastructure development. The World Bank views Afghanistan as a prospective hub for regional trade. The WTO points to significant improvements in the categories of “Getting Credit” and “Registering Property.” Thanks to a modern secured transactions law that helps companies obtain loans, Afghanistan is now well ranked for “Starting a Business.”
Afghanistan’s economy is improving, especially in agriculture, commodities, and traditional industries. The nation is home to a wealth of natural resources, including natural gas, petroleum, and certain key minerals. It has benefited from billions of dollars of international aid and investments. In many ways, Afghanistan is typical of troubled regions around the world.
Experience with Afghanistan and the war on terror has provided important lessons for Western governments and businesses alike. Companies now include terrorism as an important factor in their international planning. Firms are devising international strategies that emphasize flexibility and the ability to change course quickly, with less dependence on vulnerable physical facilities. Foresight and skillful management reduce the risk of loss and downtime. Companies are putting more emphasis on developing closer relations with governments and other key players in uncertain foreign markets.
Since the launch of the war on terror, many world regions have experienced attacks and conflict. But companies are fighting back. Experienced managers are vigilant and favor approaches that ensure long-term, sustainable success. Simultaneously, governments are learning to strike the right balance between security and unneeded intrusions in business and our personal lives.
Educators like us have an important role to play. Alongside managers and public authorities, we share a responsibility to redefine global commerce. Increasingly, business must emphasize attitudes and behaviors that are not just ethical, but also socially responsible, compassionate, and focused on the long-term stability of nations worldwide. Perhaps the best hope for a brighter future in troubled regions is business that, in addition to expanding profits, meets the social and economic needs of local stakeholders.
The struggle against terror, extremism and adversity is a long-term effort. The costs in human and financial terms are extremely important. But hope remains eternal. Responsible, collaborative business can go far toward improving the social, political and economic landscape worldwide. The global business community has both the capacity and responsibility to protect against the terrorist threat and to support development of a more sustainable, peaceful world.
Michael Czinkota teaches international business in Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and at the University of Birmingham in the UK. He is a former deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Commerce. Gary Knight is a professor and expert on international business at Florida State University. Gabriele Suder holds the Jean Monnet Chair at SKEMA Business School in France, China and the USA and is a visiting fellow at ANU’s Center for European Studies.








Order by Time Order by Popularity
12 Comments
Login to comment
0
tkoind2
The real truth is that Afghanistan was already a victim long before the "War on Terror" started. It was a victim of cold war policies that led America to fund and back fundamentalist groups in addition to legitimate rebels in the war against the Soviets. The very same groups that would later give rise to the Taliban, support Al Qaida and assasinate the only real leader the country had.
All this was locked into place when the west conveniently forgot about Afghanistan once the Soviets pulled out. Afterall a pawn in the cold war game was only as valuable as its ability to help win the game. When the game was over, so was interest in the the pawn Afghanistan.
The US has no one to blame for the mire in the country than itself. We set the stage for this problem to begin, we helped it by our self centered policies and we are now suffering the consequences of even more bad decisions.
Afghanistan cannot be won as it is being managed today. It can only be won with exponentially more investment, greater collaboration with the locals and even then, violence is likely to continue.
4
johninnaha
The "War on Terror" is a war that can never be won. Mostly because Terror isn't an enemy. Terror isn't a person or a group of people, it's a WAY OF FIGHTING.
The basic principle has probably been present all through human history.
The ancient Britons were terrorists.
It happened in Greece, Egypt and I'm sure long before.
And the traditional way of dealing with it is to try to smash it to pieces.
It doesn't work.
It didn't work in Vietnam and it hasn't worked in Afghanistan.
The U.S.A. in particular has made enemies world wide where it used to be admired.
The end result is less freedom for everybody and less security.
HUGE amounts of money have been wasted on this, hundreds of thousands needlessly killed, both quickly through a bomb or a bullet and slowly through the inability to work because of the loss of limbs, sight, hearing, trauma etc. And I'm not ONLY talking about Americans here.
If the same money had been spent on education, on medicine, on handling poverty, malnutrition, sanitation, the "bad guys" would have faded into insignificance and the world would be a better place.
0
tokyokawasaki
If all of the interfering armies went home (ahem US) and stopped getting involved in other countries affairs, I am sure the amount of so called terror and terrorists would decline rapidly.
But then who would buy the weapons and machinery that the US mass produces, uses itself and sells to any willing bidder? The owners of these weapons manufacturing companies (US government and US politically tied families) would prefer the war on terror to continue forever due to their selfish vested interests in local and global civil unrest.
Why else is the US always at war with someone and hiding behind clever marketing phrases such as 'war on terror'? In my opinion the US foreign policy is the worlds most aggressive and dangerous terrorist.
0
ExportExpert
If america and its allies all went home the war would stop right? - NOT, the war would be on your door step by next morning.
0
Serrano
"Afghans have seen little improvement in their lives"
This is true, after all, being able to vote in free elections, the freedom to listen to music, the freedom to fly kites and girls free to go to school - so what, right?
0
Serrano
Come on, Export, the war wouldn't be on their doorsteps the next morning, it would probably be some months or even a year or two later.
0
johninnaha
Serrano, if you want to see what Afghanistan was like BEFORE the CIA started messing with it, read this article:
http://wsarch.ucr.edu/wsnmail/2001/msg01806.html
If the U.S.A. hadn't backed the wrong horse by supply arms to the Taliban, Afghanistan would have a much more modern society, with rights for women, free elections and education for all and hundreds of thousands wouldn't have been killed unnecessarily.
-1
Serrano
johninnaha - If you want to know what Afghanistan was like before the British started messing with it, read a history book.
0
TorafusuTorasan
Wow, there's some great recommended reading here. Let me zip over to Amazon.com and order a copy of A History Book. Who's the author again?
0
Serrano
Torafusu - You needn't spend any money, try the library, do you know where the one nearest you is?
0
TorafusuTorasan
I'm pretty sure my city's libraries don't have anything I can read in English about Afghanistan's history, but I had a U.S.-published world history textbook (World Civilization: the Global Experience, 3rd edition, 2003) near my kneecaps, so I checked it to learn about the British in Afghanistan. Instead, I was given only one measly paragraph about the Soviet Union, including: "The rise of Muslim awareness in the 1970s was deeply troubling to the Soviet Union, with its own large Muslim minority; this prompted an invasion of Afghanistan to promote a friendly puppet regime, which bogged down amid guerilla warfare in the late 1980s. On balance, the Soviet Union played a cautious diplomatic game, almost never engaging in warfare but maintaining a high level of preparedness."
My history book disingenously makes the Soviet occupation sound like childs play (a cautious game with friendly puppets), let alone completely ignoring the British involvement. So was the U.S. just waiting for the chance to fill a post-Soviet vacuum in Afghanistan? Has our experience there been similar to the Soviets and British, and if so, what can we learn for future reference?
0
johninnaha
I know the British AND the Russians dicked around with Afghanistan before the U.S.A. But in 1971, it was doing well. Read the article at the link:
http://wsarch.ucr.edu/wsnmail/2001/msg01806.html
Back to top