Today in Afghanistan
Les Gelb has an interesting op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, highlighting the President's recent wobblies on Afghanistan and suggesting a middle path forward. Gelb has been a leading Afghanistan skeptic, so it's news that he's now in favor of adding two more brigades (about 10,000 troops) to the fight, as well as another 5-10,000 trainers.
This is less than the U.S. military wants--the rumor is 4 to 6 additional brigades (about 25,000 troops)--but it is still a substantial commitment, which Gelb says should last another three years--to transition to Afghan control of the war and an enhanced U.S. counter-terrorism capability, mostly special operations and intelligence forces, to continue the fight against Al Qaeda.
It is notable that Gelb doesn't mention counterinsurgency (COIN), which is what the military is intending to do with the additional forces--as I reported last week, General McChrystal favors a renewed effort to secure the Afghan population in crucial areas like Kandahar city. The Washington Post reports today that McChrystal is beginning to withdraw U.S. troops from isolated rural areas to bolster the effort in more heavily populated districts.
But the most troubling aspect of the Administration's policy is, as Gelb points out, the President's own conflicting statements--hawkish a mere three weeks ago at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, more circumspect during his Sunday morning TV blitz. The circumspection makes sense; the hawkishness doesn't.
There is a need for a new strategy--or maybe just...a strategy. The rigged Afghan elections have demolished the Karzai government's credibility--and a real decision about future troop levels can't be made until the nature of Karzai's second term government becomes clear: for example, will he get rid of corrupt, drug-tainted allies like his brother Ahmed Wali in Kandahar and Sher Ali Akhundzada, who was caught with 9 tons of opium at his compound in Helmand?
Various sources have told me that the Administration now lines up this way on the troops question: Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Jim Jones are in favor of granting the military's request. Joe Biden is more skeptical, in favor of looking at other options--like fewer troops or the slow transition to counter-terrorism strategy that Gelb suggests. The President is undecided.
-
1
3 years of increased troop levels in Afghanistan? So we'll be more than a dozen years into the occupation of that country before we start talking about drawing down elevated troop levels? I find that unacceptable.
-
2
Joe,
There hasn't been much air time given to Iraq these days. Am I wrong in assuming most of these additional troops will be coming from draw downs in Iraq. If so, what does this mean for Iraqis if the President decides to grant the additional brigades?
-
3
Joe:
.
I would be curious to also know you thoughts on McCrystal's previous job during the Iraq War as being someone who headed up the Special Ops. The person who is credited with saving the "surge" along with Petreaus.
.
Do you know if McCrystal's suggestion to increase troops, rather than using more special ops pretty much says it all Joe? For McCrystal, a special ops specialist to ask for more troops is saying clearly that the "weeding" out of the enemy has not been successfully acheived, and they will never move forward in Afghanistan until they are able to acheive this goal first.
.
How does this play with the people in Afghanistan. Will they embrace more foreign troops on their soil, and the ability of our troops to get positive relationships built in a country that has so much distrust of any foriegners, period?
.
Would you also say if McCrystal's request is not given by Obama, then the next thing we should do is totally get out of Afghanistan and bring our troops home?-
3.1
Yes, your questions are a bit convoluted, but Rusty, I'm proud of you. It's good to see you trading in bastardized Talk Radio sound bites for more coherent, serious questions.
-
-
4
As Gelb himself has noted, it always enhances one's credibility in the Serious Foreign Policy community to advocate for more military action.
-
5
Sorry, OT, but here's great Sam Tanenhaus talk introduced by Mike Lind at the New America Foundation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWO-LSszZI
(For all you political philosophy/history wonks out there.)
-
6
I'd rather Obama wait a bit and think things through and grill each side of the debate than commit right now to a long-term strategy that proves disastrous.
We're between the proverbial rock and a hard place in Afghanistan. No wonder the pundits have no consensus (and we know that the MSM usually dances to the same tune, making sure to follow the Village meme). There's no easy answer for anyone to push and it's clear the American public has no stomach for more war deaths that lead to no visible progress.
-
7
Mr Gelb is morphing into a chickenhawk in an effort to catch up with Pres Obama as Pres Obama is trying to go far past W to become an uber rabidly, right wingnut, reactionary, war monger since Pres Obama bought Afghanistan, the Patriot Act & other reactionary legislation & policies from W.
Someone should inform Mr Gelb of Afghanistan's history since Mr Gelb may not be conversant with Afghanistan's history of eviscerating foreign troops who enter Afghanistan for any reason.
Mr Gelb glibly proposes that we waste even more troops & money on our futile campaign in Afghanistan.
The Afghani people are telling us in the USA, "Scram, [Uncle] Sam!".
The USA will be most fortunate if 5% of the troops we send to Afgnistan back to the USA alive & uninjured. Any money we've spent on Afghanistan if gone for ever. If we spend anymore on our useless campaign in Afghanistan will be wasted too.
Afghanistan is a boondoogle that has now gone far beyond FUBAR.
No Drama Obama is going to become OTO, One Term Obama, if he persists in the USA's failed Afghan campaign. Obama talks a good game but that's it.
One could compare Pres Obama to Bernie Madoff. No money we put in Afghanistan or Iraq is going to comeback to the USA. Neither our troops nor our money is going to accomplish the USA'S goals.
It's far past the time for US troops to return home to the USA. Neither Obama nor the chickenhawks get it. -
8
There is a need for a new strategy--or maybe just...a strategy. Are we going after أسامة بن محمد بن عوض بن لادن, or
القاعدة. Once we have that solved the strategy will be easy. -
9
Joe,
Worse is Obamas thoughts (and some amongst the US and Brit strategists ) to actually negotiate with the Taliban.
There is no good and bad Taliban.
McCrystal is right - but he need tons of boots on the ground plus action on Pakistan. Insurgency in these areas is pretty much a numbers game and mountains suck in a lot of troops.
The Russians with more boots could build up some order in Afghanisthan but could not do much about the rabble pouring over from Pakistan.
The questions is where will all those troops come from. The Europeans are close to useless on it.
The only country with the ability to provide a lot of troops is India and maybe Turkey but as long as one listens to the pakistanis that will not happen.
The Indians can provide up to 2 divisions (30000 troops). Maybe they could take care of the North freeing the US and Brit troops to move South.
-
10
Gelb writes "Even though I strongly believe that the United States does not have vital interests in Afghanistan..." then goes on to recommend the sacrifice of more American lives there. Shouldn't you at least believe it is in our national interest before you start or expand a war? Many believe it is necessary to insure our security and in that case the additional troops make sense; but Gelb's argument is just incoherent.
- TIME The scoop on Google Buzz from @techland | http://su.pr/1zDlZ6 - 3 hours ago
- TIME Are the bible stories true? Evidence from archaeology | http://su.pr/2ekoPX - 4 hours ago
- TIME Why is NBC pretending Conan never existed? | http://su.pr/4Pbjbh - 5 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Irony of the Day
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS