Thinking Small in Troubled Afghanistan (How Obama's Approach Will Be Different)

[tekisui]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is likely to scale back U.S. ambitions for troubled Afghanistan, redefining victory in a war that his closest military and foreign affairs advisers say cannot be won on the battlefield.

Even before a planned doubling of U.S. forces in Afghanistan later this year, the new administration is lowering its sights — and lowering expectations. Although there is general agreement that the United States will be in Afghanistan for years to come, the new focus is on how to show even small security gains and development progress quickly.

"That's clearly the message I'm getting is, 'what are the near-term goals going to be?'" Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said when asked about Obama's agenda for Afghanistan.

Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has recently suggested the Bush administration overreached in Afghanistan, are scheduled to testify Tuesday before the Senate and House Armed Services committees.

Vice President Joe Biden said the world hasn't done enough to provide economic, political and military resources to Afghanistan and the U.S. and its allies lack a coherent strategy. The result is a country backsliding into Taliban control, Biden said.

(snip)

It is likely to be less about democracy and more about old-fashioned charity and development work. It will be measured by small, local gains in security and governance that give Afghans a reason to reject the efficiencies and protection offered by the Taliban insurgency.

Gates, a holdover from the administration of Republican President George W. Bush, suggested last week that the previous administration had unrealistic ideas about what it could accomplish in Afghanistan.

That's a common criticism from outside analysts and one of the conclusions of an unreleased internal White House report prepared last year, so it was notable more for who was talking than for what was said.

"One of the points where I suspect both administrations come to the same conclusion is that the goals we did have for Afghanistan are too broad and too far into the future," Gates said during a Pentagon news conference.

"We need more concrete goals that can be achieved realistically within three to five years in terms of re-establishing control in certain areas, providing security for the population, going after al-Qaida, preventing the reestablishment of terrorism, better performance in terms of delivery of services to the people, some very concrete things."

Mullen added that "the right governance development in Afghanistan, along with the economic development" are essential. "Because, over time, without that, all the military troops in the world aren't going to make any difference."

more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hGd2ZMkQDv13Yzbd62VRkk0SKRYQD95V4P480

[tekisui]

1. This article suggests a more level headed and realistic approach

in Afghanistan. But, also says the reclaiming and securing phase of this war will last 3-5 years. We are looking at a 20 year war in Afghanistan.

[Bragi]

2. How does this fit with sending in 30,000 more troops?

The article reads: "We need more concrete goals that can be achieved realistically within three to five years in terms of re-establishing control in certain areas, providing security for the population, going after al-Qaida, preventing the reestablishment of terrorism, better performance in terms of delivery of services to the people, some very concrete things."

I guess the additional troops could help reestablish control in some areas, provided that their presence and behaviour doesn't result in more people supporting the insurgents. Troops might also be useful "going after al Qaeda". Though al Qaeda itself mostly left Afghanistan years ago, no doubt some international jihadists will return to that country to fight the US troops. As for "better performance in terms of delivery of services" and "concrete things", it seems highly unlikely that this will happen as the increase in US troops ramps up combat.

Which is to say that I am unimpressed with this iteration of new, realistic short-term goals. The only useful short term goal would be reducing U.S. presence in the country, which is obviously the opposite of what Obama currently intends. For now, he now simply creating his own personal quagmire that he will come to regret. My hope is that he will recognize from the evidence on the ground the futility of escalating this war sooner rather than later, and that as few people -- Americans and Afghanis -- as possible will die in the interim.

- O

[tekisui]

3. As Obama pulls troops out of Iraq, that will remain chimpy's war.

Next year Afghanistan will become Obama's War. He appears ready for it to last through two terms.

[Bragi]

4. Sadly, I think you are correct

Recall that the spineless post-9/11 Congressional dems became war hawks on Afghanistan mostly because, as public opinion forced them to become at least nominal opponents of the Iraq fiasco, they felt the political need to be seen as supporting at least some war, somewhere, to show they weren't wusses. The official narrative emerged wherein Iraq became the bad war, and Afghanistan the good war, which Bush had foolishly dropped to invade Iraq.

Reality is different. Afghanistan was never a good war, that the reason for going in (to get Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda) made no sense once BL and AQ left the country to hide out in Pakistan. Since then, the war (or the PR justifying it) has morphed into a half-assed national-building exercise. This rationale is highly suspect, what with Afghanistan being one of the poorest and most backward nations on the planet, and the drug barons, religious medievilists and tribal warlords who run the place just aren't all that into nation-building.

So now we have Obama trying to invent a new rationale and a new set of achievable goals for this hapless war.

I'm guessing that before long, me and many others will reluctantly end up attending anti-war rallies protesting Obama's war. Makes me sad to think that's what will happen, but I don't see much choice in the matter. The Afghanistan war is pointless, and will be a blight on Obama's administration that I think he will eventually come to regret.

Sigh.

- B