Afghan Journal

Lifting the veil on conflict, culture and politics

Ten years on, still trying to frame the Afghan War

June 14, 2011

U.S. President Barack Obama is in the midst of a wrenching decision on whether to quickly bring home the 100,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan or stay the course in the hope that the situation will stabilise in the country.

The problem is it is still not clear what the huge operation estimated to cost $100 billion a year is intended to do.  Here is what Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said last week when asked what would constitute success : “I think we’ll have a much better fix in terms of clarity towards the end of this year in terms of longer-term … potential outcomes — and when those might occur — than we do right now.”  The military were in the middle of the fighting season and once that ends when winter arrives, they would be in a better position to make a call. But how many fighting seasons has the military gone through already in Afghanistan ? Their logic is that the 30,000 additional troops that Obama sent in December 2009 have started to turn things around in the southern bastions of the Taliban, and more time is needed to extend the gains in the east where the insurgency is just as stubborn.

But isn’t that the way this war has been fought all these years, and indeed even before during the Russian occupation ? You muscle into one part of the forbidding country with men and armour, the insurgents melt away and launch attacks in another part.   You are then left with the option of diverting resources to fight them in a new battlefield, or risk stretching yourself thin holding on to  gains while trying to secure new ground.

One U.S. official, the Financial Times reports, (behind a paywall)   likened  it to an arcade game where the player uses a mallet  to bash a random and increasingly frantic series of moles back into their holes. Or as Senator Richard Lugar, ranking member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said last week : “Despite ten years of investment … we remain in a cycle that produces relative progress but fails to deliver a secure political or military resolution.”

Many aren’t even convinced if it makes any sense fighting the Taliban anymore. If Obama’s core objective in Afghanistan is to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda,   then  that job is nearly done at least in Afghanistan where the CIA says the group’s numbers are down to anything from 50 to 100.  If anything there are more al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen or even Somalia, and yet they don’t have 150,000 foreign troops deployed to hunt them down. Is Obama now fighting the wrong war as he once blamed the Bush administration for, when they invaded Iraq ? Osama bin Laden’s killing  last month in Pakistan  offers even less reason to be still fighting in Afghanistan, the sceptics argue.

If the reason for staying on in Afghanistan is to ensure that it does not become a safe haven for al Qaeda and other groups all over again, then perhaps  it needs to be fleshed out what constitutes a threat from Afghanistan . Is there a threshold number of al Qaeda fighters that make it necessary for a U.S. invasion ?  Greg Scoblete writes in the Real Compass Blog:

More fundamentally – how do we know when Afghanistan ceases to be a threat to U.S. security? Most of the recent terrorist plots that have been unearthed have originated in either Pakistan or Yemen. Isn’t that significant? Is there any realistic time-frame when the country could not “potentially” be a safe haven? If we couldn’t achieve this in 10 years, how much more time do we need?

In any case, a c0mplete U.S. withdrawal is hardly on the cards.  Even those arguing for a quick exit are building their case on the ground that a sizeable force will be left behind focused on counter terrorism operations rather than trying to hold territory.  Indeed the United States and Afghanistan  have been holding talks on the long-term American role in the country, a strategic partnership that many see as aimed at allowing Washington to maintain  a presence well beyond 2014 when Afghan forces are supposed to take over security responsibilities.  

The Guardian reported on Monday that the two sides are trying to work out  an agreement “which is likely to see” U.S. troops, spies, and air power based in the troubled country for decades.”

Comments

Perhaps the Guardian reporter got the hint. Once again the Afghans resistance has managed to defeat a super power and declassified it to a world power similar to tday’s Russia. The Iraq hero General Petros has thrown in the towel in the ring against the taliban rag tag might proving to his superiors that he was just a smoke screen put forward as a Goliath who could win the hearts and bodies of the warriors of the valley. He did convince his superiors though of his skills in covert and surprise actions during night raids. Not very popular with Mr Karzai.
American new strategy under the current administration at least indicate that in the future, america is going to rely on covert actions by special commandos, under the direction of the CIA chief, hence Gen. Petros promoted to become CIA chief. No more carrying heavy metal medals on the chest during long interrogation sessions with congress. This could change of course, in case the conservative candidate defeat the current incumbent President. Ths policy appears to be, no more foot prints in a foreign land. NATO contries are going to start training their contingents as well to be ready for covert operations. No bodies, no photos and therefore no evidence. Western media gets horrified with the collateral damage particularly when children, old people and women bodies appear on videos!

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •