NATO was originally formed at the close of World War II to act as a deterrent to Soviet expansionist tendencies in Europe, and not to combat homegrown insurgencies, a role it now finds itself playing in a part of the world where it was not initially meant to intervene. NATO’s original mandate was to defend Western Europe from communism as the Iron Curtain went up creating a physical, philosophical and psychological divide between Eastern and Western Europe.

NATO’s peaceful deterrence of preparing for war by investing in the peace paid full dividends in more ways than one. It helped provide protection to the smaller European nations who would have been unable to defend themselves from the Soviet bloc, as an attack against any NATO member would have been considered as an attack against all NATO member countries, including the United States. Additionally, NATO forced the Warsaw Pact countries to spend considerable sums of money in a never-ending arms race; it was money neither the USSR nor its satellite countries could afford to spend, but had no other choice in order to keep up with the Western advances in military development. In the end it was in part the spending on military hardware that helped bring about the demise of the Soviet empire. Moscow simply could no longer keep up at the same pace. The final straw that broke the Soviet bank was the Star Wars initiative introduced by President Reagan.

Today NATO faces the same problem, though today the shoe is on the other foot. For every dollar spent by the Taleban in Afghanistan, Western forces are spending millions of dollars and with little or no result to show for it. In fact, all indications seem to point to a resurgence of the Taleban. Indeed, as recent events have demonstrated, the Taleban have now expanded their war into next-door Pakistan.

NATO forces were trained to fight against traditional armies and in conventional wars. The armed forces of the Western Alliance had trained hard all throughout the Cold War. Hundreds of military exercises were conducted with allied forces in Europe. Large-scale war games kept the Alliance prepared for the worst-case scenario. Yet little attention was given to the possibility that they may one day have to fight asymmetrical wars. That possibility is now a reality. As former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told the Middle East Times during an interview a few weeks ago, “American forces fighting in Afghanistan are over equipped.” The Taleban, explained the former Pakistani president, wear sandals, carry a blanket and survive on a loaf of bread and an 
onion a day.

The war in Afghanistan is not going to be won through conventional warfare. A quick look at history books should reveal as much. The Persians tried it, as did the British and the Soviets. None succeeded. And as the last few years have shown us, the US-led coalition is not making much progress, either.

As President Obama is examining what strategies to implement in Afghanistan it might be useful to review the history of the country; once again, no major power was ever able to come out victorious.

So what needs to be done? The war in Afghanistan needs to shift gears; priority must be given to training government forces while at the same time

NATO and coalition troops currently engaged in Afghanistan need to deploy smaller units of special forces to go after the Taleban leadership. More emphasis needs to be given to covert operations. At the same time a vast review of the country’s education system needs to be implemented. The solution to the Afghan dilemma can only emerge from within the country. Any peace imposed from the outside will a short-lived one.

Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times and author of the newly released book, ‘While the Arab World Slept; the impact of the Bush years on the Middle East.’