Echoes of Iraq as UN Slashes Staff in Afghanistan

WASHINGTON (Nov. 5) -- The United Nations portrayed its decision to cut its international staff in Kabul by more than half in the wake of a deadly Taliban attack as a temporary effort to regroup.

But could the move in Afghanistan usher in a bigger change, as a far more devastating assault in Iraq did in 2003?

"This is like it was for Iraq -- a wake up call," said Christine Fair, a professor at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service who worked for the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan in 2007. "They're going to have to reassess their security."

The audacious attack last week on a UN guest house in Kabul killed eight people, including five non-Afghan staff. Three insurgents were killed and a Taliban spokesman later said their assault was targeted at workers involved with a planned Nov. 7 presidential run-off election that has since been canceled.

The October attack came toward the end of the deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 and underscored the deteriorating security situation in the country.

Farhan Haq, a spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, said Thursday that 600 of 1,100 international UN staff will be relocated to other parts of Afghanistan or temporarily sent out of the country. Most are non-essential personnel. Those doing humanitarian work, including distributing food and working in hospitals, are staying put.

The UN has 93 guest houses in Afghanistan. "We're trying to consolidate to a smaller number that can be better defended," Haq said.

Fair, who stayed at one of the houses and once watched rockets launched by rival warlords soar over the yard during a barbecue, said their locations were well-known among Afghans. The UN there "had fairly sloppy security," she said. "Their perception was 'the Taliban don't target us.' "

UN officials may have felt similarly invulnerable, or at least eager not to put on a fortress facade, in the early days after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that was before a massive truck bomb destroyed UN headquarters in Baghdad on August 19, 2003, killing top envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello and 21 others. The UN withdrew most of its staff from Iraq soon after a second attack two months later. By then, the country was spiraling into a violent civil war.

The UN would not return until 2007 and still has only a fraction of the operation it once had.

"In Iraq, they were traumatized and got out," said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group. He said it may have been easier for the UN to pull up stakes there because the administration of President George W. Bush "didn't want" the organization to play a major role. The scenario is different in Afghanistan, where the UN has operated for decades and where a multinational force oversees military operations. "It may be harder to dislodge the UN," he said.

Daniel Serwer of the U.S. Institute of Peace said the UN is unlikely to abandon Afghanistan as it did Iraq. "They've got to protect their people," he said of the announced staff relocation. "We've seen nothing like the wholesale withdrawal we saw in Baghdad," he added, noting that despite attacks and kidnappings in Afghanistan, the population there is "much more sympathetic" to the UN mission than were Iraqis.

Humanitarian aid groups also aren't fleeing in droves. But they are trying to keep a low profile.

Several aid groups declined to speak on the record about their Afghan operations. One said it had stopped sending Western workers into the country. A senior official who works closely with NGOs said many were reviewing their security procedures but weren't moving out. "The nature of the threat was graver in Iraq," said the official. "In Afghanistan, violence directed against humanitarian workers is not as pervasive."

Shortly after the guest house attack, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, which coordinates security for aid organizations, issued a report suggesting groups not involved in elections shouldn't assume they were targets. Still, no one needs to be reminded of how dangerous Afghanistan can be.

"Aside from the anger we feel over this atrocity, we're fully aware of the situation in Kabul," said Eric Le Guen, global security adviser for the New York-based International Rescue Committee. "The UN's decision is understandable."

Four IRC employees were killed in an ambush in August 2008. The incident triggered a reassessment of the group's footprint in the country and spawned limits on travel as well as a greater reliance on local staff.

Although Le Guen said NGOs "don't want to go too far in the direction of protection" lest they alienate the local population they are trying to help, the UN attack and subsequent evacuation could "lead some NGOs to rethink their presence."

Le Guen doesn't criticize the UN for pulling out much of its staff. "Any organization would pull back and reassess after an incident like this," he says, but he added that it could have "worrisome" security consequences.

"The Taliban could see this pull-out as a real victory, and that could be a signal to them to continue targeting soft targets," he said. "Obviously what they're trying to do is create a feeling of terror in the city."

James Graff contributed to this report from New York.