U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say

[bigtree]

from the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


WASHINGTON — President Obama’s advisers are coalescing around a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.

Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send additional troops but how many more will be needed to guard the most vital parts of the country. The question of how much of the country should fall under direct protection of American and NATO forces will be central to deciding how many troops Mr. Obama will dispatch.

At the moment, the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said. The first of any new troops sent to Afghanistan would be assigned to secure Kandahar, the spiritual capital of the Taliban, which is seen as a center of gravity in pushing back insurgent advances.

{snip}

At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the Taliban is an indigenous force — nor does it need to in order to protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that would eventually take over the mission.

In effect, the approach blends ideas advanced by General McChrystal and by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seen as opposite poles in the internal debate . . . read more


'blending ideas' . . . muddle in the middle stuff, more self-perpetuating conflict, imo.

[Thrill]

1. ugh. I knew he wouldn't stand up to these Commanders and so no more troops

sad. Presidency will be hammered by this dumbass war

[bigtree]

3. he still has the opportunity to define us out of this

I doubt he'll take it, but we'll see. It's not political science to guess that he'd look to split the difference between the hawks and his own peace-prize instincts to avoid outright war. What's dismaying is the certain prospect that this occupation will take the course of Iraq's in stringing this out until they are willing to declare 'success' or victory. The only noticeable effects of our military remaining engaged in defending the 'population centers' will be the predictable sense and consequence of a foreign occupation. Everyone behind the line our military forces draw in the sand is supposedly a 'friend' and everyone outside of that line an 'enemy'. It actually sounds even more dangerous to continue to poke and prod at the Taliban resistance (notwithstanding the limited effort planned as described) while expecting new Afghan forces to confront and contain the inevitable reprisals. What arrogance to assume that our military is more than its own worst obstacle to the 'stability' they purport to want for Afghanistan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. There's an appropriate acronym for this admistration's "new strategy", FUBAR.

Now they're about to try the "fortified village" strategy to prolong a lost war and call it new.

If it weren't for the death and destruction and the bankrupting of our nation it could be viewed as merely pathetic.

[bigtree]

4. berms around Kabul?

walls?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. First they have to get rid of Ngo Dinh Diem...er..Karzai and disrupt the Ho Chi Minh Trail..

er...the Taliban from Cambodia..er..Pakistan.

Ah, well, I'm sure they know best...

[Vattel]

5. Interesting approach

A containment strategy in Afghanistan makes a lot of sense given the general hatred that most Afghans have for the Taliban and the fact that the Taliban mainly operate in a limited geographical area. If this would buy time for improving the economy and bringing Afghan forces up to speed, then maybe it could work. On the other hand, I worry that Kandahar would become a lightning rod for Taliban attacks so that our presence there would make things worse for the people who live there. I also worry about the idea of relying heavily on drone attacks in rural Pastun areas. Killing innocent bystanders must be avoided for both moral and strategic reasons. If the government continues its pattern of corruption, the economy doesn't improve, and the Taliban get stronger because they control the countryside in Pashtun areas, then the strategy might fail and Obama will bear the primary responsibility for wasting American lives and resources. I'm glad it's not my decision.

[bigtree]

8. they're pretending that the green-zoning of Iraq is some sort of success

. . . and that, with a limited force, they can duplicate the effort in Afghanistan to some sort of pantomimed retreat years from now. We've been there and done that. I can't see a scatter shot approach as described doing anything more than just keeping our troops bogged down waiting for some sort of political point where someone can declare success or victory. What we need to see from the president is a definition of some kind of end point to it all - some sort of end goal they can point to. There's a danger that this approach could lock this conflict into place, failing to make any significant dent in the militarized opposition or any real reform in the government we've enabled and supported into power. The entire enterprise already plays into the hands of those detractors who will use the U.S.-dominated occupation as a recruiting tool in their resistance to U.S. and NATO ambitions in their homeland. We need a strategy which is honest about the future of Afghanistan. We can't defend our junta forever . . . this administration looks to believe they can put the lid on the resistance by covering all bases. The best course, I believe, would be to act as decisively in moving out of Afghanistan as we did going in - not this flailing of efforts the article describes as planned.

[Vattel]

12. I agree with this:

"There's a danger that this approach could lock this conflict into place, failing to make any significant dent in the militarized opposition or any real reform in the government we've enabled and supported into power. The entire enterprise already plays into the hands of those detractors who will use the U.S.-dominated occupation as a recruiting tool in their resistance to U.S. and NATO ambitions in their homeland."

On the other hand, although the containment strategy is potentially a long-term one, we are not merely propping up a "junta." The vast majority of the people of Afghanistan despise the corruption of the Karzai government, but they vastly prefer that government to a Taliban alternative. And the endpoint would be Afghan security forces capable of effectively providing security, coupled perhaps with less political corruption and a better economy. Granted, that's vague, but it is a discernable goal.

[Vattel]

13. Bottom line, though:

If this is going to cost hundreds of American lives and tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, I don't see how it can be the best use of our resources. We would be much more secure if we were the world's main provider of economic aid and not the world's police force. But for Americans, foreign aid is unpopular unless it involves killing people. Our adolescent attachment to militarism has to go.

[anonymous171]

7. Why are we there again? nt

[bigtree]

9. "What is our purpose in Afghanistan?"

"After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? They deserve a straightforward answer . . . let me be clear: al Qaeda and its allies - the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks - are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the U.S. homeland from its safe-haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban - or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged - that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

--President Obama announcing his Afghan plan

[Vattel]

11. Do you think that Obama was being disingenuous

in those remarks? He is saying that we need to be in Afghanistan now because Al Qaeda might have a safe haven there if the Taliban is too successful. And if that happens a terrorist attack on US soil is more likely? So we make it certain that the lives of American soldiers will be lost and we spend a couple of billion dollars a month because if we don't maybe some American lives will be lost? That sounds stupid and Obama isn't stupid.

[bigtree]

14. not really

I do think that he's defined the mission there in a way that allows the military to continue the force posture in the region that Bush assumed when he was in office. I don't think he's ready to adopt a policy which is significantly independent of the attitude of the military and intelligence leadership he's chosen to advise him and carry out his orders. As you know, most of the Bush holdovers in the leadership have advocated a deeper offensive role for our forces than our progressive advocates want. I think the president wants to maintain this inside relationship he's established with the hawks, mostly because he's never had much of an outside relationship with the forces and the Pentagon. The initial appeasement on the deployments and the policy objectives to the holdovers was his ticket to join this particular boys club.

Now, it may well be that behind all of the bluster about 'defeating al-Qaeda' that the president is maneuvering to eventually disengage from Afghanistan and take a more direct course against the original remnants of the 9-11 fugitive suspects. But I fear that he's going to settle for splitting the difference between his stated progressive ideals and the opinions of the folks he's surrounded himself for advice and implementation of his military policy.

I think the president is a smart and capable leader. I also believe that his reflexive tendency to seek compromise threatens to undermine any decisive move away from the militarism he inherited from the last bunch. All that said, I think the president is naive about the end effect of all of the more progressive moves he's made to advance things like diplomacy, aid, and development while still allowing the military forces' offensive actions against the population to escalate. The danger is that the escalation will overshadow all of the diplomacy and lock us into a self-perpetuating conflict against the resisting Afghans. Is he smart enough to overcome all of that as he pushes forward with the dual occupations? Maybe his smarts aren't as consequential to the future policy as is the political courage it will take to reverse course.

[Vattel]

15. thanks

I appreciate your insights

[bigtree]

10. .