Aug 31, 2009
The current US military strategy in Afghanistan is not working, America's top commander is expected to admit in a review to be presented to Barack Obama in the next few days.
According to reports leaked to the BBC,
General Stanley McChrystal will liken the US military to a bull
charging at the matador-like Taliban and slightly weakened with each
"cut" it receives. The review is also expected to confirm that
protecting the Afghan people against the Taliban must be the top
US officials have spoken openly about the failing war effort in Afghanistan
and McChrystal's report will be a distillation of their strong
misgivings. He says the aim should be for Afghan forces to take the
lead, but that the Afghan army will not be ready for three years and
the police will need longer.
The report does not mention
increasing troop numbers, but the implication is that more soldiers
will be needed to turn around an unsuccessful strategy. Officers in
Afghanistan consider much of the effort of the last eight years wasted,
with too few troops deployed and many of them placed in the wrong
regions and given the wrong orders.
Any recommendation of a troop increase would come against a background of growing scepticism about the war, with the latest Washington Post-ABC news poll
showing that 49% of Americans now think the fight in Afghanistan is
worthwhile. Obama appointed McChrystal to turn around a war that is
sucking in more and more western troops with litte discernible progress
against the Taliban, which has proven to be much more resilient and
organised than expected.
"Over the next 12 to 15 months, among
the things you absolutely, positively have to do is persuade a
sceptical American public that this can work, that you have a plan and
a strategy that is feasible," Stephen Biddle, a military expert who
advises the US-led command in Afghanistan, told the McClatchy-Tribune
Another leading counter-insurgency expert said
Afghanistan's government must fight corruption and deliver services to
Afghans quickly, because Taliban militants were filling gaps and
winning support. The Taliban were already running courts, hospitals and
even an ombudsman in parallel to the government, making a real
difference to local people, said David Kilcullen, a senior adviser to
"A government that is losing to a counter-insurgency
isn't being outfought, it is being out-governed. And that's what's
happening in Afghanistan," Kilcullen told Australia's National Press
Afghanistan has been in political limbo since the
presidential election on 20 August, with partial results so far placing
President Hamid Karzai in the lead, but not by enough to avoid a second
round against his main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah. The election,
which the Taliban failed to disrupt with rocket attacks, has been
marred by allegations of fraud with around a third of the votes counted.
Gilles Dorronsoro, an Afghanistan expert covering the elections for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
a Washington thinktank, said the Taliban controlled the countryside and
had a strong presence even inside cities such as Kandahar and Ghazni.
the major cities, Afghan administration is non-existent. As President
Obama must realise, whether Afghanistan is led by Hamid Karzai or
anyone else, the problem for the international coalition is not one of
insufficient force; it is insufficient government," Dorronsoro said.
has already sent nearly 20,000 additional troops to Afghanistan,
raising the total of US troops to about 68,000 by the end of the year.
In all, Nato has committed about 100,000 troops to the war effort.
McChrystal is widely expected to ask for even more forces, as he tries
to implement the kind of counter-insurgency strategy that prevented
Iraq from descending into all-out civil war two years ago.
Obama has to wrestle with Afghanistan, there is also renewed concern
about Iraq, where suicide bombers have stepped up attacks that have
killed hundreds of Iraqis as political tension mounts ahead of
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.