According to the UN, this year became the bloodiest in the whole period of the Western military presence in that country. Thus, for 10 months in 2009 killed more than 2,000 civilians, of whom more than 1400 victims of action by the Taliban, and others – as a result of the erroneous bombing of the international coalition and Afghan army. Compared to 2008 the number of victims increased by 10%.

Also significantly increased the losses among the armies’ contingent of Western countries, primarily U.S. and UK. The total loss of the international coalition for 10 months amounted to 506 people were killed, whereas for the same period in 2008, they were only 295 people. Of these, the U.S. had 310 military deaths (155 people in 2008.), Great Britain – 106 killed (51 people in 2008).

The sharp increase in losses due, of course, significant enhancement activity of the Taliban militants. Previously, the main source of instability was in the south and east of the country, but now it is increasingly alarming reports come from the western and northern provinces, including the capital of Afghanistan – Kabul. It's once again made Afghanistan, primarily in the information field, one of the most-profile issues.

The reaction of the press to such reports from Afghanistan was the shift analysis, which became more critical. Taking into account that Western public opinion is highly sensitive to the impact of mass media, the emergence of such articles directly impact on the further reduction of public support for the Afghan campaign and the popularity of several politicians.

According to the Gallup Foundation poll in November, compared with July 2009. support Obama's policy in Afghanistan has fallen from 56 to 35%. Polls have shown that the decline in the popularity of the chosen course is not dependent on party affiliation. In July, Obama was supported by more than a third of Republicans polled, and in November – only 16%. Of the 70% of Democrats supporting the president remained 54%. Falling popularity provoked by the fact that the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns have turned into a black hole, absorbing more and more financial resources against the backdrop of the pending economic problems in the United States.

The growth of instability in Afghanistan and the number of people in the United States, dissatisfied with the way things are going in this country, have put Barack Obama in a very difficult situation. He had to find a "Solomonic solution" that would, on the one hand, to achieve a decisive victory in the Afghan area, but on the other, to reassure public opinion, not inclined to support a long war, which has been going on for 9 years.

That decision, according to the White House seems to send an additional 30,000 troops. But it fix the time frame of its presence in Afghanistan – until mid-summer 2011. In parallel, efforts were made to obtain the consent of the Allies for an increase of 7,000 of their units in Afghanistan, as well as to establish the northern channel of supply of goods through Russia and Central Asian states. After the transfer of reinforcements to the Afghan theater of operations, the number of troops of the international coalition should reach 150,000 soldiers and officers, and this does not include employees of the various security companies, which are now in Afghanistan, there are up to 80,000, and for a total of 230,000 people. This is the largest in size military grouping, have ever located in Afghanistan.

Taking into account that for the transfer of such powerful reinforcements, equipment and related infrastructure takes time, it can be assumed that the active large-scale action NATO begin closer to the summer of 2010. Based on periods voiced by Obama, the essence of the new strategy, most likely, will be in delivering a series of powerful offensive attacks in the summer-autumn period of 2010 and possibly spring-summer 2011 on all the most problematic areas. First, it will be all the Afghan-Pakistani border areas, where the main militants and weapons delivery is going on, as well as where key Taliban bases located.

Most probably, that support for these actions, on the other side of the border could provide the Pakistani army, which is already conducting operations against the Taliban in the South and North Waziristan, Swat for several months. It is assumed that after the achievement of military success, most of the responsibility for maintaining security would be handed over to the Afghan army and police, whose personnel and technical strengthening continues.

Meanwhile, in the expert community expressed different assumptions on the future of the Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan.

In particular, there is doubt about the fact that the Taliban will act against the international coalition as a classic army, entering the large-scale direct clash. The experience of the second Chechen war has shown that attempts to irregular forces to act as a regular army turn into their rapid defeat. In this regard, many analysts suggest that the Taliban are likely just disappear in some regions, which would be the most active operations of international forces, and will bet on diversionary and mine war, as well as the use of suicide bombers.

A possible reduction of Taliban activity can be a strategic trap – the external pacification of the territory may be taken for the defeat of the Taliban and on this basis may be initiated by the withdrawal of Western troops and the transfer the control of the territorial to poorly trained Afghan army. However, as soon as the situation will change in a more favorable side, the militants have kept potential, may be re-activated. In principle, such a move in a decades-old conflict in Afghanistan is quite common.

At the same time, if militant activity still can not put down, then raise a difficult situation as for both interests of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party behind him so as for the development of geopolitical situation in Central and South Asia. Acute in this case, adding that the White House itself announced the beginning of the process of withdrawal in 2011. A natural question raise up "Will there be yet started the process of troop withdrawal in the event of continued instability?"

The importance of this matter is that it will depend on the alignment of forces in the American domestic political arena. Already in autumn 2010 in the U.S. midterm elections will be held in Congress and in 2011 to begin preparations to participate in the presidential race in which success or failure in the Afghan mission could become a major bargaining chips in the hands of candidates for the highest office.

The problem of 2011 is extremely relevant for countries bordering Afghanistan, as well as for such major players like Russia and China. In fact, this region does not have its own concept of stabilizing the situation in Afghanistan – all tied to the presence of the international coalition in this country.

In this regard, louder voices of those who are in favor of that it should not delay the development of a new vision to resolve the Afghan problem indefinitely, but should in the near future to all interested parties to begin the search for common approaches.

As one of the options it is proposed creation of a ground "6+3", an idea of which was voiced by the President of Uzbekistan Islam Karimov back in 2008 at NATO summit in Bucharest. Its essence lies in the fact that direct dialogue to resolve the situation in Afghanistan will involve all the bordering countries plus the United States, Russia and NATO. At present, extensive consultations on the practical implementation of the proposed model are carrying on.

Given the above, we can assume that in many ways 2010 could be decisive for the fate of the Afghan mission of the international coalition, and as a consequence of the new American strategy. Today, almost everyone understands that only military means can not solve the Afghan problem. Parallel efforts are needed to strengthen the military and police forces of Afghanistan, boosting the economy, eradicate corruption, creating an ideological platform of revival, to combat growing drug industry and many others. Over the past 9 years much has been done, but there were obvious failures in many areas.

Will the Karzai government with the support of the international coalition during 1 year to solve the problems that have accumulated over the decade - is a very complex issue. Of course, it is unlikely that all the problems will be solved, but it is important to give new impetus to the development of the country and society. Otherwise, all military efforts and large financial injections can give a smaller effect than expected.

Rustam Makhmudov
Expert of the Center for Political Studies