12/01/09

After months of deliberations, the President has reportedly issued the orders that will deploy 34,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan over the course of the next year.  But, as progressives have been arguing for months, and top Administration officials have recognized, no strategy for Afghanistan will succeed with a focus on troop numbers alone.  The Administration must back these deployments with a strategy that lays out clear objectives in accordance with U.S. interests, spelling out the essential duties of U.S. military and civilian personnel, and how those duties fit within the broader effort to secure the main U.S. strategic objectives.  

While today’s media focus is understandably on the troop deployments, it is even more critical to appreciate the importance of Afghan politics.  Ongoing political turmoil and dysfunction at all levels of the Afghan political system, coupled with complex regional dynamics, represent a challenge which no number of troops can effectively address, one which is equal to the threat posed by the insurgency.  Administration officials, encouraged by outside experts and progressives, appear to understand this crucial point.  For the President’s strategy to have any chance of succeeding, a plan to deal with Afghan politics must take center stage.

President Obama to announce new Afghanistan strategy, including reported increase of 34,000 troops.  The Washington Post reports that “President Obama will outline Tuesday his intention to send an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan, according to U.S. officials and diplomatic sources briefed Monday as Obama began informing allies of his plan... The president also plans to ask NATO and other partners in an international coalition to contribute 5,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, officials said. The combined U.S. and NATO deployments would nearly reach the 40,000 requested last summer by U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the coalition commander in Afghanistan, as part of an intensified counterinsurgency strategy.”  The New York Times adds that the “new American troops will focus on securing a number of population centers in Afghanistan where the Taliban are strongest, including Kandahar in the south and Khost in the east,” and that “Mr. Obama has concluded that the strategy for dealing with the Taliban should be to ‘degrade its ability,’ in the words of one of the officials deeply involved in the discussions, so that the Afghan forces are capable of taking them on. At the same time the president’s strategy calls for ‘carving away at the bottom’ of the Taliban’s force structure by reintegrating less committed members into tribes and offering them paid jobs in local and national military forces.”

The Post also reported that the troop increase is specifically tied to the performance of the Afghani government, saying, “The new troops are to be sent in stages beginning in January, with options to delay or cancel deployments, depending on the performance of the Afghan government and other factors.” The Post goes on to say that “[e]ven as he escalates U.S. involvement, Obama will lay out in his speech what amounts to an exit strategy, centered on measures to strengthen the Afghan government so that its security forces can begin taking control of their own country. He is expected to specify benchmarks for Afghan progress on both the military and political fronts, according to U.S. and allied officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity about the strategy.” [Washington Post, 12/1/09. NY Times, 12/1/09]

It’s the mission, not the troop numbers, that matters.  In an interview with NBC, President Obama stated, “I’m confident that at the end of this process, I'm going to be able to present to the American people in very clear terms what exactly is at stake, what we intend to do, how we're going to succeed, how much it's going to cost, how long it's going to take.” This is the correct approach to take, as it is the mission and strategy, not only the number of troops, that will make the difference in Afghanistan.  As Colin Powell explained in a recent interview, “You can't guarantee success in a very complex theater like Afghanistan and increasingly with the Pakistan problem next door, but you have to have some sense of what these additional troops will be able to do.” And Candace Rondeaux, a Kabul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group, made a similar point in an interview with Foreign Policy Magazine, saying, “I think the question is, ‘What will these troops do?’”

Establishing the correct mission is clearly the most important part of developing an Afghanistan strategy.  Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, argues in the Daily Beast that President Obama has made an important change to the mission that will make it achievable: “His (President Obama’s) goal up to now has been to ‘defeat’ al Qaeda. The new mission: to ‘dismantle and degrade’ the terrorists. It is a more modest and achievable goal, intended to weaken the terrorists’ ability to operate in the South Asia region. The United States will continue to take the lead over the next few years to achieve this goal in Afghanistan. But after that, the president is expected to say, the main burden will fall on Kabul—though with continuing American economic and military support.” [President Obama, via AP, 11/20/09. Colin Powell, via ABC News, 11/11/09. Candace Rondeaux, Foreign Policy, 11/24/09. Leslie Gelb, Daily Beast, 11/25/09]

The President’s strategy must have Afghan politics at its core.  Administration officials, both military and civilian, have said that the threat posed by continued political turmoil and dysfunction in Afghan politics outweighs even the security threat posed by the Taliban.

Following the tainted re-election of Hamid Karzai, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Michael Mullen testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee saying, “I consider the threat from lack of governance to be equal to the threat from the Taliban…I think the legitimacy of the Afghan government at every level, not just the national level – I mean, that’s where the election is – is a real concern and that there needs to be a level of legitimacy that the Afghan people see in their government, whether it’s local to national...”  [Admiral Michael Mullen, 9/15/09]

Additionally the commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, wrote in his assessment of the Afghanistan war that “Success requires a stronger Afghan government that is seen by the Afghan people as working in their interests,” and that the problem of legitimacy “contribute[s] to the Afghan Government's inability to gain the support of the Afghan population.”  [General Stanley McChrystal, via Washington Post, 09/21/09]

Such opinion is backed by experts on Afghanistan, who have fought to shift attention away from a narrow focus on troops to an approach that puts local, national and regional politics at the center.

U.S. Institute of Peace Expert Alex Thier wrote last month for Foreign Policy: “Thus, the focus of our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan should not be exclusively, or even primarily, military. Instead, the real key to success in Afghanistan will be to reinvigorate critical efforts to promote Afghan leadership and capacity at all levels of society while combating the culture of impunity that is undermining the entire effort.” [Alex Thier, 11/06/09]

Major Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.) testified before the House Armed Services Subcommittee, saying: “this preoccupation with the number of soldiers is secondary, I believe, to the greater issue of economic engagement and political engagement.” [Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), 11/05/09]

Reporter and author Gretchen Peters, who has covered Afghanistan for over a decade, voice a similar opinion: “The military effort must be supported by an intensive diplomatic effort to ease regional tensions that contribute, in a variety of ways, to violence, corruption and instability inside Afghanistan. These include the India/Pakistan divide and the ongoing tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Obama could set an example for India and Pakistan by sitting down with Iranian leaders.” [Gretchen Peters, 11/09/09]

What We’re Reading

Foreign oil companies are accepting new limits on profits from business in Iraq, in the hope of locking down long-term contracts that will be more profitable over time.

Iran’s most senior cleric denounced the role of the Basij militia in cracking down against opposition protesters, saying “the assailants have acted against religion and must pay blood money” to those who were wounded. Iranian authorities seized five British sailors after their racing yacht may have strayed into Iranian territorial waters.

The trial of the suspect of the USS Cole bombing will test the military tribunal system set up for some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Meanwhile, four Guantanamo detainees will be transferred to various European nations.

The most recent attack by Somali pirates has resulted in the capture of an American-bound Saudi oil tanker.

The United States has split with some of its Latin American allies over whether to recognize the results of Honduras' recent presidential election.

A former Venezuelan ally of President Hugo Chavez was arrested on corruption charges and his business assets have been seized.

A mayor in the Philippines has been charged with murder after the recent massacre of 57 opposition supporters and journalists.

Having declared independence from Serbia almost two years ago, Kosovo has recently been making some concrete progress towards sovereignty.

Commentary of the Day

Mona Eltahawy explains the many factors behind the vote in Switzerland regarding the ban of future minaret construction. The New York Times also expresses concern.

Ivan Krastev analyzes the Kremlin’s view of Obama’s presidency, in order to provide some understanding of how the US can better engage with Russia.

Brendan Borrell argues for a revision in the manner in which a treaty safeguarding the Antarctic is being implemented.