Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Calls for Change of Strategy in Afghanistan Grow Louder
WASHINGTON - Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.
US soldiers on patrol in Arghandab Valley on September 5. In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration's ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "(p)rospects for success are dim."(AFP/File/Patrick Baz) In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration's ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "(p)rospects for success are dim."
Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group", which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.
"(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions," said IISS's director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year's report.
"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."
The two reports come amid growing public skepticism both in the United States and its European and NATO partners - two of which, Canada and the Netherlands, have just withdrawn all of their troops - about the course of the war, which will soon mark its ninth anniversary. Currently costing U.S. taxpayers 100 billion dollars a year, the Afghan war became the longest in U.S. history earlier this summer, when it exceeded the Vietnam conflict.
Despite the appointment in June of Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the U.S. COIN strategy in Iraq, to head U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, two out of three respondents in a recent CNN poll said they believed Washington was "not winning" the war. Half said the war could not be won.
Sixty-eight percent of respondents in a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll taken last month said they were "less confident" that the war will be brought to a "successful conclusion" - a striking increase from the 58 percent who took that view last December. Only 23 percent said they were "more confident".
The increasingly sour mood is no doubt due in part to the preoccupation with the economy and growing political support in both parties for cutting the yawning government deficit, of which the 100 billion dollars spent on Afghanistan is not an insignificant part.
But the persistent high casualty rates - this year's total U.S. military death toll, 331, already exceeds 2009's record high of 317 - has also contributed to the growing popular conviction that the war is simply not worth the cost.
Meanwhile, the virtually daily reports of high-level corruption in the government of President Hamid Karzai - this past week, major stories have featured the run on the politically well-connected Bank of Kabul - have persuaded a growing number of people, including members of the foreign policy elite and even a number of normally hawkish Republicans, that Washington simply lacks the kind of local partner that any true COIN campaign requires in order to prevail.
Released as Congress returns to Washington after the long August recess, the Afghanistan Study Group's report, entitled "A New Way Forward: Rethinking U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan", appears designed to provoke debate about U.S. policy during the mid-term election campaign and in the run- up to a formal review in December by the Obama administration itself of how its COIN strategy is faring.
On the advice of Petraeus and the Pentagon, Obama has increased the number of U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan from some 35,000 when he took office to around 100,000 today. He has vowed to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, although the pace at which they will be withdrawn has not yet been determined and remains a source of considerable contention within the administration.
The administration has indeed been split for some time. The so-called COINistas have argued for a major "nation- building" effort combined with a military campaign directed against the Taliban which they depict as inseparable from al Qaeda. Others within the administration, reportedly led by Vice President Joseph Biden, have argued for a less ambitious counterterrorism campaign (CT) aimed more narrowly against al Qaeda on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border.
In that respect, the Study Group, whose membership spanned the political spectrum from the Democratic left to the libertarian right but was weighted most heavily towards "realists" who, until George W. Bush generally dominated the post-World War II foreign policy elite, is aligned more closely with the CT advocates.
Quoting arch-realist Henry Kissinger, the report noted that "Afghanistan has never been pacified by foreign forces," and that "(w)aging a lengthy counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan may well do more to aid Taliban recruiting than to dismantle the group, help spread conflict further into Pakistan, unify radical groups that might otherwise be quarreling amongst themselves, threaten the long-term health of the U.S. economy, and prevent the U.S. government from turning its full attention to other pressing problems."
"We've been creating enemies faster than friends," noted Paul Pillar, who served as the CIA's National Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, at the report's release at the New America Foundation (NAF). Complaining of a "disconnect" between the conduct of the war and U.S. aim of destroying and disabling al Qaeda, he described the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan as "a nine-year-long mission creep".
The report called instead for a five-pronged strategy that would "fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties"; intensify diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's neighbors and others "to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability"; and lead an international effort to develop the country's economy.
Obama, it said, should "firmly stick to his pledge to begin withdrawing U.S. forces in the summer of 2011 - and earlier if possible. U.S. force levels should decline to the minimum level needed to help train Afghan security forces, prevent massive human rights atrocities, resist an expansion of Taliban control beyond the Pashtun south, and engage in robust counter-terrorism operations as needed."
In particular, U.S. forces should maintain their capabilities "to seek out known Al Qaeda cells in the region and be ready to go after them should they attempt to relocate elsewhere or build new training facilities," the report said. "Al Qaeda is no longer a significant presence in Afghanistan, and there are only some 400 hard-core Al Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af/Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."
Besides Pillar, other signers of the report included Gordon Adams, a top White House budget official for national security under the Clinton administration who is currently with the Stimson Center; Steve Clemons, the head of NAF's American Security program; Patrick Cronin, a senior adviser at the Center for a New American Security; W. Patrick Lang, who served as the top Middle East/South Asia officer in the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency during the 1990s; Selig Harrison, an Afghan specialist at the Center for International Policy; and Stephen Walt, a Harvard University scholar considered a leader of the "realist" school of international relations.
Jim Lobe's blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com.
- Posted in
33 Comments so far
Show AllA NATO spokesperson recently said the greatest strategic threat to NATO is the Haqani Network
Haqani is not even a Talib!
This is a battle between the Pashtun Nation and the USA for possesion of Afghanistan.
The USA has not been able to foment another Civil War and know they will not be able to subdue a nation of 40 milion Pashtuns without a Civil War.
And thank Allah Karzai will not cooperate in slaughtering his own people!
What IS 'our' mission?
The mission is to make Afghanistan safe for industrial greed and avarice.
recyling of US tax payers money to the coffers of military brass,war-monger columnist,armchair warriors and some NGOs who wont get a job . I did not mean to exclude the high-tech decapitating machine makers .
The mission is to complete a natural gas pipeline called TAPI (Turkmenistan?- Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) to power a new energy plant in developing India.
it Seems world events and the push of the people are forcing Obama slowly towards peace.
The MIC was a self feeding war machine long before Obama was born.
Even Kissenger knows this is a lost war.
How can Obama invade any more towns farms and cities in Afghanistan anymore and look like the "good guy" in the white hat.
I feel the world is gettin it now.... it's the war economy and how poor do we have to be for peace anyway?
Even without the help of Congress, Obama has the authority to offer the world peace.
The hard part will be all the thousands of special troops and mercenaries that will keep the conflict heated.
The longer the USA waits to bring um home, the worse it will get. Best way is to talk with the terrorists... might even find out what happened to Osama and where Obama was really born. Haaaa
"Best way is to talk with the terrorists..."
So, Obama is going to converse with Bush or Kissinger, or perhaps Rice and Powell? Maybe Obama will talk to himself while he's looking in the mirror shaving.
Everywhere an Imperialist country treads destabilization and ruin follow that take generations to recover from. Hell, Iran hasn't recovered from the 1953 coup, and the Barbarians are still doing their best to keep it that way.
what's up with the heroin, Jim?
dubet, You need fucking help.
Just like us Jims
yeah, brother!
I just keep waiting for any of these 'confused about Afghanistan' authors to focus on something tangible, like the growing and processing of the poppies...
especially those who, under the guise of 'investigative reporting', actually go to Afghanistan...
a field can be observed, a truck can be followed...
investigate, and report...
I know why they don't, but it still gets tiresome to read this kind of stuff over and over...
Poppies are used by florists as well, and have legitimate medicinal uses; moreover, they provide useful drugs other than intoxicants, including a potent anti-cancer drug, anti-stroke, and potentially anti-Alzheimer/ Parkinson drug(s). Probably a lot of poor farmers and others there brew poppy tea, which is much less addictive when used responsibly, and has been used for centuries as a cough suppressant and sleep aid.
of course...
would that be why Afghanistan output has gone from minimal to virtually the entire world's supply since we invaded, or why soldiers are guarding fields?
this wouldn't be the first war used to cover drug running...
Counter Insurgency = Death Squads.
"We've been creating enemies faster than friends," noted Paul Pillar
Gee, who would expect that from sending death squads in to kill people? I saw one report from a Norwegian reporter who embedded with the Taliban for a few days and he showed video of a three year old girl and 5 year old boy who were later killed in a raid by one of the U.S. Military's "counter insurgency" squads. Cute kids. Their father happened to be one of the leaders of the local Afghan fighters. He got away, but the children died.
Don't you get it? Profiting from war, death, chaos, mayhem--that is, for the ruling elite, the very definition of "success." It's been a stunning victory. First, a massive false flag operation that fools most of the population. Roll out war, an all out attack on civil liberties, the destruction of international law, massive transfers of wealth from ordinary people into the pockets of the ruling elite, a completely sycophantic media, a befuddled 'left'--WOW--And NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ANY MASSIVE CRIME. Success beyond their wildest dreams. No serious resistance. Victory and spoils to the new aristocracy.
All ever so true; so where is the real success ? The fascist amerika empire IS collapsing because of all the suffering it has/ is causing !
"In that respect, the Study Group, whose membership spanned the political spectrum from the Democratic left to the libertarian right but was weighted most heavily towards 'realists' who, until George W. Bush generally dominated the post-World War II foreign policy elite, is aligned more closely with the CT advocates.
Quoting arch-realist Henry Kissinger..."
_____________________________
Sorry to repeat myself, but the above-cited Kissinger description almost uncannily evokes a bit from a recent comment:
I marvel at what a seductive term "realist" is to the weak-witted and others unable or unwilling to think critically.
It evokes equally solid terms with sucker appeal: "down-to-earth", "no-nonsense", "practical", and of course the pseudo-intellectual "pragmatic".
I don't know if an equivalent term existed in the Biblical Garden of Eden, or in the first-century Aramaic lexicon. But when Eve grabbed hold of Adam's, er... elbow, and Satan did the same to Christ on the mountaintop, you may be assured that their storied Temptations included the exhortation to be a "realist".
It's the ultimate weasel-word, or at least in the top ten of all time.
What unreflective, unwary person doesn't see it as the brass ring, the foundation of virtue, the ultimate expression of clarity and balance? All things being equal, who can resist fancying themselves a "realist"?
What normal, modest, sensible person wants to be a Purist, a Idealist, an Extremist, a Radical-- that is, an UNrealist? That's so obviously WRONG, so mistaken, so foolish, so repugnant, so... unbalanced.
"Realist" is the Mark of Cain, proudly claimed by Eichmanns big and little.
_____________________________
Oh, and I'm not sure what to make of the oxymoronic "Democratic left". Maybe it's a typo.
Otherwise, to mildly paraphrase Mark Twain, the competing strategies outlined in this article add up to "tails we win; heads they lose"-- as long as things don't finally blow up in EVERYBODY'S face.
You're a funny guy!
peace
OBS, it's called "Neural Linguistics." I've been interested in this technique since my reading of Orwell's 1984. I have used the technique myself, with my own children - but only to get them to eat what's good for them.
Obedient Servant,
Now that you point it out, it is obviously true. I had not picked it up, which means that this small propaganda technique slipped through my defenses and worked on me.
Being practical and factual--even frugal--is generally a good thing, but as K once said: "The word is not the thing, and the description is not the described." This means that the mind holds pictures of what is factual and practical and colors them with belief and interpretation, which makes them un-factual and unreal. Things that used to point to or be a 'virtue' have been perverted and spun to justify exactly the opposite. Corruption calls itself good and necessary, while what is really good and necessary has been called bad. We do indeed live in an upside down world.
Heck, many people even believe there is no such thing as natural and unnatural, or naturally beneficial or naturally harmful. That is part of the reason so many have found it acceptable to poison nature for profit; they propagate the nonsense that man can do it better than nature. Bulls**t! Ignorance is embodied in the inability to understand and discern between the two. It's also why people can be polarized on just about any issue. Orwell understood about the spin and labeling that has gotten us to where we are today.
Change of strategy. New generation of imperialists re-learning old lessons on the backs of the people.
Most damaging is that most USans accept elite suggestions to ignore the war because it's "out of your control". However I do think torches and pitchforks are in our control. Along with income taxes withheld from the monster. Personally I've paid almost zilch over the past fifteen years, and it feel great. You wanna help starve the monster?
Change of strategy. New generation of imperialists re-learning old lessons on the backs of the people. At great expense to the people. USan solidarity with the world is destroyed along with the lives and livelihoods of so many innocent Afghanis, Iraqis, and the many victims of USan "soft" imperialism workdwide, including Latin America, most particularly in Mexico. Many even in Japan, Germany and Korea feel the USA's imperial oppression.
Most damaging is that most USans accept elite suggestions to ignore the USA's imperial agenda and imperial campaigns because it's "out of our control".
However I do think torches and pitchforks are in our control. Along with income taxes withheld from the monster. Personally I've paid almost zilch over the past fifteen years, and it feel great. You wanna help starve the imperial monster?
Doesn't it suck to agree with Henry Kissinger!
peace
yeah...but, then, your mind can always be changed...
be glad you don't look or talk like him!
(apologies, if you do...!)
I wish news services would get their facts right. Canada doesn't withdraw from dust haven until next summer.
Since the so-called government in WARshington is as corrupt, bloody-minded and incompetent as the so-called government in Kabul, no true, actual change of policy should ever be expected. You will, however, hear persistent reports of "progress" and, around next September, a few months before we're supposed to withdraw completely from Iraq, the existential threat Afghanistan poses to the American way of life which, to Flopco/Obama, is as "non-negotiable" as it was to Cheesedick Cheney.
Hmmmm. If we're looking at an Armenian String Cheese Dick, it needs to be examined.
Granted, it would be pure white, but still could be subversive.
i've got a great idea. BRING THEM ALL HOME.
The invasion was stupid and unnecessary. We should not be there. Anybody who knew anything about history knew that.
It's not success they are after, it's a pipeline.
The ruling elite don't like to pay for things.
I am going to make a prediction here. There will be change soon. I cant say what it is, but even O must know that continuing as we are is no longer an option. It will cost his re-election. There may be other options, but these are the ones I can think of. Which will it be:-
(A) Another surge.
Our current surge was huge. It got nowhere. Another one would be much like maintaining the status quo.
(B) Withdrawal from Afghanistan, like our Iraq "withdrawal, without having another war.
No, the MIC would not like that one. What will we do with all those soldiers?
(C) Begin the war on Iran and wind down the Afghanistan war.
That will keep the war machine happy. Makes the Israel even happier. They may even guarantee O's re-election for that.
It's telling that Amerikkka calls it policy in Afghanistan COIN. It reminds me of Amerikkka's policy in Iraq--Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
No change in policy or tactics or change in Afghan leadership will change the outcome of American involvement in Afghanistan. Whatever is changed will only lead to the eventual defeat of American forces. And any further attempt to create a "democratic, freely elected, secure" government is only a dream of the politicians in the US.
What was started as a war against terrorism soon became a war of attrition and revenge. This war was not waged on behalf of security and safety for the American people. It was a political war waged for the benefit of the crooked politicians in Washington and for the possibility of a secure source of oil in Iraq. And fear was the motivating factor that drove this country forward.
There were three thousand people killed on 09/11/01 but the killing did not stop then. It has continued with over 4000 killed in Iraq and almost 2000 killed in Afghanistan. The total is not 3000 but 9000. What have they been murdered for??? To promote the political agendas of this government. Bush started these murderous wars and is responsible for EVERY American soldier killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. He should be brought before the World Court in The Hague and be tried for crimes against humanity. Tried for the countless civilians murdered in those countries. Then brought to this country and tried again for the deaths of all of the soldiers murdered there. What are the chances of that happening???? Not good.............but the beat goes on.
w