When the Obama Administration began a 60-day review of its Afghanistan strategy, a diverse group of progressive experts in development, counter-terrorism, regional politics and US politics came together to advise NSN on a set of principles that might guide both the Administration in building a new strategy and advocates in Congress, the media and the public in judging a proposed strategy. We begin from the premise that the situation in the United States, and the history and dynamics of the region, require a sharp differentiation between objectives that we might like to achieve and a baseline of what must be achieved for our national interests and our moral obligations – to our military, our citizens and the people of Afghanistan.
A day after the release of thousands of documents shedding new light on America's nine year effort in Afghanistan, it has become clear that Congress will take up the debate. Though there is recognition that the deterioration depicted in the documents represent the consequences of years of neglect by the Bush administration, the release of these documents cannot help but invite new scrutiny of the war. As Council on Foreign Relations expert on South Asia Daniel Markey remarked, "[w]hether WikiLeaks uncovered anything new isn't actually important - it's on the front page of every newspaper in the country; the media is now focused on Afghanistan, and that makes it a big deal." The job of Congress, and serious analysts, is to sort through the chatter to the key questions: the state of the Afghan Security Forces, corruption, Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan, the best way to define conditions that allow the US to wind down its military commitment and pursue the ultimate objective of defeating the extremist threat. Americans deserve better than a warmed-over shouting match over an endless military commitment to Afghanistan, desired neither by the military nor the American public.
Last night an archive of classified military documents spanning six years was made public by the organization WikiLeaks through the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. The documents bring new depth and vividness to the challenges the U.S. faced in Afghanistan and Pakistan from January 2004- December 2009. The documents highlight the consequences of the Bush administration choices to neglect the war in Afghanistan and offer Pakistan's then-military regime military assistance without oversight. And they provide painful details of the challenges and limitations our current strategy faces. In sum, they are a potent reminder of the need for the administration to hold to its timetable and define the conditions necessary to bring the Afghan war to a successful and responsible close.
Delegates from 70 countries and organizations convened in Kabul today for a conference on the future of Afghanistan. The conference laid out an ambitious vision for transitioning full security responsibility to Afghan security forces by 2014, building capacity within the Afghan government, and a framework for re-integration and reconciliation with elements of the insurgency. But for meaningful progress to take place, the agenda must be translated into action on the ground.
Domestic unease with developments in Afghanistan is growing, as evidenced by declining enthusiasm for the war in recent polls, and mounting concern in Congress. Domestic uncertainty, and the difficulty of translating aspirations into action makes it all the more important for the administration to define the conditions necessary for bringing the Afghan war to a successful close. This will require tough choices, which differentiate between what could be achieved in Afghanistan, and what must be achieved for the sake of the core U.S. objective: "to disrupt and dismantle, defeat and destroy al Qaeda and its extremist allies."
Yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing to confirm General David Petraeus as the new commander for Afghanistan saw a stark contrast between conservatives and progressives on how best to deal with America's war effort. Conservatives sought over and over to make the hearing a referendum on the July 2011 commencement of a conditions based transition out of Afghanistan. Despite the General's explicit support for the date, conservatives tried to depict daylight between Petraeus and the Administration, even after it was clear that there was none. In contrast, Senate progressives used their oversight rule effectively, pressing the general on the recent challenges encountered by the U.S. and its international partners in Afghanistan, including lagging efforts at standing up the Afghan security forces, as well as ongoing difficulties in creating an effective and accountable Afghan government.
Yesterday in the Rose Garden, President Obama displayed the leadership qualities that helped put him in office. By accepting the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal and replacing him with CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus, the President disposed of an unnecessary, potentially compromising distraction at a time of war. He also reinforced the integrity of our time-honored tradition of civilian rule over the military. These moves garnered immediate support from across the political spectrum.
The depth of the challenge the United States faces in Afghanistan is becoming starkly clear. Negative developments in Marjah, grumblings from the Karzai government, the postponement of a major operation in Kandahar, and disappointing results in security forces training and the ‘civilian surge' must be serious points of concern for the Administration. A raft of critical media reports, and the flurry of questions showered on government officials appearing before the Senate this week illustrate the concern dramatically.
Twin developments today bring into focus the challenges the
U.S. faces in South Asia: a devastating
car bomb in Kabul killed five U.S. troops and more than a dozen Afghan
civilians, even as top U.S. officials travel to Pakistan to build pressure on countering
terrorist activity in the region. As the deaths in Kabul took the
American death toll in Afghanistan past 1,000, it is essential that the U.S.
remain concentrated on the core task of fighting extremists who seek to harm
Americans in the region and at home.
This week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in the U.S. meeting with President Obama and other Administration officials, in a visit that is expected to "look to the future, not the past." The Afghan President and his cabinet will meet with their American counterparts to discuss governance, security, economics, as well as the vision for a long-term U.S.-Afghan relationship. Beyond the media attention paid to the personal relationship between Obama and Karzai, the Afghan President's visit comes after reports indicating that the U.S. is encountering mounting challenges to key aspects of its strategy for stabilizing Afghanistan.
Afghanistan