Russian Ambassador Georgiy Mamedov says success in the Central Asian nation will be a long, tough fight, and recommends getting Iran and China on NATO's side.

Canada and its allies have a much greater chance of achieving success in Afghanistan than the Russians did 20 years ago, but the mission will take longer than two years and will likely involve a "helluva fight," Russia's ambassador to Canada said last week.

In a meeting with Embassy's editorial board, Georgiy Mamedov recalled the harrowing flight he experienced during his one and only visit to Afghanistan in the 1980s. At the time, Mr. Mamedov was head of the Soviet foreign ministry's North American desk, and mujahideen fighters were using American-supplied Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian aircraft.

"They targeted every incoming plane with anti-aircraft missiles that they procured from United States," he said. "Now the Americans are concerned about them a little bit, just like Canadians and others. "History has its own jokes that it likes to play on people."

Besides the presence of Stinger missiles, Mr. Mamedov can see many similarities between the Russian and NATO experience in the Central Asian country. "The similarity is we were trying to prop up a government that didn't enjoy huge support and popularity," he said.

"We had some militants who certainly wouldn't have come to any agreement with us, propped up by the United States. And at the same time, we had independent warlords who were dealing in drugs, as they are doing now, with whom we tried to establish certain relationships, like NATO is doing now. So there are a lot of similarities."

The Soviet Union deployed its first combat troops to the country in 1979 after the mujahideen threatened to topple the pro-Soviet government. Over the next 10 years, an estimated 600,000 Red Army troops would fight in Afghanistan.

Supported by the United States, Pakistan and other countries, the mujahideen would kill an estimated 15,000 Soviet soldiers, who conducted extensive combat operations–some of them with devastating effects upon the population–throughout the country. An estimated 1 million Afghan civilians and combatants were killed.

Mr. Mamedov said that while the reasons behind the Russian invasion and the NATO mission in Afghanistan were very different, many of the challenges–such as drug lords and foreign support–as well as tactics employed to fight the mujahideen, run along the same lines.

"What we were trying to do there, to harness support from the population, was exactly the same. Building schools, building roads, irrigation," he said. "I see a lot of similarities."

The ambassador said one major challenge that the Russians faced and NATO is facing is the use of Pakistani territory by insurgents, which has been made even worse over the years. Coalition partners have become increasingly frustrated with Pakistan as insurgents have set up bases and training facilities in parts of the country along the border with Afghanistan. They then cross the mountainous border to stage attacks on coalition forces before retreating back.

While Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, has repeatedly stated his country is working to eliminate the insurgents from its territory, Mr. Mamedov said that not only is the president in a precarious position of trying to balance domestic and international interests, but that the country's security establishment has a history of supporting so-called freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

"And with years they grew certain personal and commercial connections," he said. "Narcotics sold in Afghanistan and finding their way into Russia, and Europe and Central Asia, part of the proceeds find their way into the coffers of some important people in Pakistan. Let's face it, it's a very troublesome situation."

Despite the challenges and the Soviet Union's failure in Afghanistan, Mr. Mamedov said he was not writing off NATO's chances for success in the Central Asian country.

"I'm not pessimistic," he said. "I believe when we act together and have a clear goal in mind...not to mould people in our image, not to create Switzerland, or Montana, but simply to neutralize the most inhumane, the most militant forces that are out to get everybody, including Afghanis themselves, I think together we have a reasonable chance of success.

"But it doesn't mean you won't face a helluva fight and you will need a lot of internal resolve. It's going to be tough, and sorry to say so, it's going to take longer than two years.

"Can I guarantee it will be a success?" he asked. "I can't. Our practical experience of being there, fighting there, taught us it was almost mission impossible. But again, we were alone, and we were facing not just the Taliban, but United States, NATO, other countries who believed they were supporting their friends and partners."

Mr. Mamedov, however, has one piece of advice for coalition members. "They should involve more all countries of the region. Talk to Iran. Talk to China."

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/march/14/afghanistan/

Response on next page…..

Comparing the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with NATO and Canada's current roles in post-conflict peace-building and reconstruction activities lacks symmetry, even though it may sound attractive to a small group of political and historical revisionists (Re: Afghanistan an 'Almost Impossible Mission" March 14). While there may be some cosmetic resemblances, the historical context, military logic and geo-political motivation behind the two interventions are in contradiction. The divide is even greater when you ask how the Afghan people perceive and compare the two.

Having experienced almost three decades of suffering and trauma that started with the violent coup d'état of 1978 and ended (even though pockets of instability are still evident across the country) with the collapse of the Taliban regime, today, millions of Afghan men, women and children have real hope for a more peaceful and prosperous future.

It seems that the Afghan version of Afghanistan's recent history and Russian Ambassador Georgiy Mamedov's version agree on some points, but are at odds on a few others.

When comparing Soviet actions in Afghanistan to the post-9/11 UN-mandated international mission currently underway, one has to define them in terms of their strategic purpose, legitimacy, impact and legacy.

To succeed in attaining those goals, we should avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, and continue to stand by the Afghans in their attempts at preventing a security relapse and at nation-rebuilding.

To compare an elected parliament and president (who won almost 54 per cent of the popular vote through fair and free elections) to a propped-up regime does not bode well. To establish cause-and-effect for the million Afghans killed, seven million refugees and economic devastation that my people experienced may also shed light on when and how it happened, and who was responsible. Should we really take this route?

Without resorting to blame-game rhetoric, what happened to Afghanistan over those years, and the threats that the country, the region and the world face at the moment as a result of inaction or wrong action at different stages in the past, cannot be dismissed as mere "jokes" played out by history.

Would it not be best to leave the Soviet Union's policies in the 1980s vis-à-vis Afghanistan to that period and to those policymakers, and instead concentrate on Russia's new vision and new stated policies that have over the past five years, as part of multilateral and bilateral commitments, helped us make progress toward rebuilding a stable Afghanistan, and counter the threats we face together?

We have convergence of views with Russia and many other countries on serious regional complexities dealing with extremism, terror and drugs. Only last month, at a joint conference during Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's visit to Kabul, Russia expressed its "desire for an Afghanistan without menace of terrorism and narcotics, and a country with a sustainable security and development." The statement also reiterated that, "both sides agreed that an active participation of the international community and countries of the region play a major role in achieving these goals."

Following the Bonn Accords, Afghanistan extended a new hand of friendship and co-operation toward all its neighbors as part of the Good Neighborly Framework initiative signed in 2002. Since then, we have made great strides to expand trade, transit, investment and other ties. Only in the past two years, the resurgent threats of a violent insurgency along the Afghan-Pakistan tribal regions, coupled with the domestic poppy business, have raised the stakes and put us all on high alert.

Afghans generally agree to allow history and time heal old wounds. For those reasons, while still facing serious challenges, in my country, the international rebuilding engagement is viewed as an almost possible mission, and not the other way around.

Omar Samad is the ambassador of Afghanistan to Canada.

http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/march/21/samad/