| October 10, 2008 | by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Ali Frick, Ryan Powers, and Matt Duss Contact Us | Tell-a-Friend | Archives | Permalink | Subscribe to Feed |
'Muddling Through'
Asked in November 2003 whether the United States would "finish the job" in Afghanistan, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) responded "I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq...but I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making then in the long term we may muddle through in Afghanistan." Unfortunately, "muddling through" is just what we seem to be doing in Afghanistan. According to the New York Times, a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to be released in November "concludes that Afghanistan is in a 'downward spiral' and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence there." The report will be "the most comprehensive American assessment in years on the situation in Afghanistan." In addition to the problem of cross-border attacks launched by militants in neighboring Pakistan, and inefficiency and corruption in the Afghan government, the report also describes "the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan’s economy," according to intelligence officials. Afghanistan produces the most opium in the world.
THE CENTRAL FRONT: A Center for American Progress report, The Forgotten Front, anticipated the NIE's conclusions back in November 2007, noting that while "the United States and the international community initially made great strides to oust the Taliban and al Qaeda and stand up the Afghan government following the invasion in October 2001...the situation has dramatically deteriorated since 2005." The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area and now support a growing Afghan insurgency. "Although the current administration has portrayed Iraq as the central front of the 'global war on terror,'" the report states, "Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan remain the central battlefield." The website Long War Journal reported in August that "Afghanistan experienced 18.4 attacks per day in 2008, compared to 12.4 in 2007," with "the eastern provinces bordering Pakistan's tribal areas account[ing] for seven of the remaining top nine most violent provinces." Gen. David McKiernan, the commander of some 60,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, reported that roadside bomb attacks -- "the largest casualty-producing event in Afghanistan" -- are up 30 to 40 percent over last year. CAP's Caroline Wadhams, Colin Cookman, and Jenny Shin wrote yesterday that the new NIE and other reports "confirm that the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is desperately off-course and suffering from a lack of resources, policymaker attention, and clear, presidential-level direction."
AIR STRIKES UNSUITED TO COUNTERINSURGENCY: Unfortunately, "as the Taliban and other militants have gained strength, America has dropped more bombs, killing more civilians." A report from U.S. Central Command released on Wednesday concluded that a strike in August had "left 33 civilians dead, including at least 12 children," but that "U.S. forces acted in legitimate self-defense in launching an air assault against Taliban militants." The Afghan government has continually protested the high civilian death toll from air strikes. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said that the death of innocent civilians in these attacks could seriously undermine efforts to fight terrorism. Karzai told the U.N.General Assembly in August that the deaths hurt "the credibility of the Afghan people's partnership with the international community." Minimizing civilian casualties is key to a successful counterinsurgency effort, which is one reason air strikes are poorly suited to counterinsurgency. Currently, the U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan have had to over-rely on air power because of the overcommitment of troops and resources to Iraq. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen said in July "I don't have troops... to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq." Anger over Iraq has also made NATO allies reluctant to step up their assistance.
NOT A 'SURGE' -- A SUSTAINED COMMITMENT: It's clear that many U.S. military leaders understand that Afghanistan is in crisis. In August, former Iraq commander and current CentCom head Gen. David Petraeus admitted to the New York Times that "the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction, and I think everyone is rightly concerned about them." McKiernan has "called for four more combat brigades" to deploy to Afghanistan. In August the Pentagon announced the addition of "12,000 to 15,000 additional U.S. troops... possibly as soon as the end of this year, with planning underway for a further force buildup in 2009." McKiernan told the Washington Post that Afghanistan requires a "sustained commitment" to a counterinsurgency effort that could last years. Contrary to McCain's claim that "the same strategy" used in Iraq is "going to have to be employed in Afghanistan," McKiernian said "the word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge.'" Describing his approach in a speech Wednesday to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Gen. Petraeus said that "reaching out to insurgent groups...was necessary to the ultimate goal of turning them against irreconcilable enemies" like Al Qaeda. Petraeus believes that success in both Afghanistan and Iraq will require political, not military, solutions, and has stressed "the concept of reconciliation." "You cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant in size as was the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan," he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment