One of the Pentagons top policymakers warned Thursday that a surge of U.S. troops to Afghanistan like the one executed in Iraq 18 months ago doesnt recognize the complexities of the Taliban and al Qaeda-sponsored violence there and could backfire.
Eric Edelman, the Pentagons top civilian policy advisor to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the situation in Afghanistan is far different than the one faced by U.S. troops in Iraq during the darkest days of sectarian violence in 2006,
We shouldnt just focus on the numbers of forces, Edelman told defense reporters at a Nov. 13 breakfast meeting in Washington. The success of the surge in Iraq, in my view, was less a function of the increased numbers it was what they were doing that mattered.
The single-minded focus on whats the level of force is wrong headed because there are a lot of elements that go into it and theres no magic number, he added.
Edelman said the Pentagon had executed what he called a silent surge of about 30,000 U.S. and NATO troops into Afghanistan in 2006, but the scale of the insurgency began to outpace even the steps that we had taken.
While Iraq has a well educated population, an oil-based economy and is mainly urban, Afghanistan is one of the poorest nations in the world, with illiteracy reaching close to 80 percent for males and per capita wages close to 50 percent of those in Haiti.
There are very large differences between the circumstances in Afghanistan and the circumstances in Iraq, Edelman said. Its very complicated and I dont think its a one size fits all there.
Edelman blamed Pakistans previous regime, led by Pervez Musharraf, for negotiating a series of cease fires that allowed the Taliban and al Qaeda sympathizers to regroup and pour militants into the anti-coalition fight across the Afghan border.
The counsel against launching a large troop buildup in Afghanistan to tame the violence comes as President-elect Barack Obama continues to call for a two brigade increase in forces to counter growing Taliban and al Qaeda-sponsored violence.
Advisors to Obama have emphasized the need for soft power to tame the anti-coalition insurgency in Afghanistan, including increases in military trainers, added diplomatic initiatives and more economic outreach.
There are opportunities to use capabilities besides military power in Afghanistan that have been underdeveloped in administration policy up until now, top Obama advisor and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig told reporters last month. It is very important to engage the Afghans as much as possible themselves.
But Obama advisors also continue to insist that the nearly 6,000 additional U.S. troops are necessary to push militants out once and for all.
Edelman stressed that some elements of the counterinsurgency doctrine that worked in Iraq could be applied to Afghanistan, particularly the notion of separating the insurgents from the population and to clear, hold and build on territory won back from the militants grip. But the ethnic complexities, degrees of anti-American sentiment among what he called big T and little T Taliban and deep cultural biases against occupation make Afghanistan a longer term commitment.
Its not going to be an easy cookie-cutter transfer of one to the other, Edelman said.
Obama advisors argue the additional brigades for Afghanistan will come directly from reductions in Iraq. But commanders in Iraq, Edelman added, worry that a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces along the lines of the 16-month plan advocated by Obama could erase the surges gains during a crucial period of provincial and national elections.
For that reason, Edelman said he expects an Obama administration to move conservatively in reducing troop levels in Iraq.
The new administration, he said, will “try and make sure the U.S. plays a role as the guarantor of free and fair elections, and that the notion of politics as a zero sum game in Iraq doesnt get loose again, which could lead to some unraveling of the security gains.
– Christian
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
The surge in Iraq was about projecting force into the cities and cleaning out known bad guy strongholds. Afghanistan is an area the state of California with the most rugged terrain on the planet. Does anyone remember when the FBI spent 2 years and $20 million dollars trying to find Eric Rudolf in 10 square miles of the Blue Ridge Mountains in North Carolina? Multiply that by a factor of 1000.
Afghanistan is the mythical “good war.” Both NATO & the U.S. spout this rhetorical nonsense,but neither put their “money” where their mouths are. I still say that Osama Bin Laden is long dead since 2001. We make the Taliban out to be the devils,then we sing the praises of Saudi Arabia(with our current president even holding hands with the Saudi King,or prince,whatever),who are just as cruel to their women as the Taliban are to theirs. Pakistan,Iran,& the former Soviet Central Asian States are slowly putting a noose around Afghanistan & it will be impossible to move both troops & supplies in & out of Afghanistan. The long term forecast for Afghanistan is that it is lost.
I still would like us be closer allies with India. They seem to be doing ok and are probably about to explode like China. Ohh and they are enemies with Pakistan who most of their people hate us. India
The success in Iraq has shown that the US military is unbeatable. Put a few more resources into Afghanistan and it will succeed, without question.
Hearts and minds…
In Afg. It’s not about how many Taliban or other resistence you can kill, but what you can offer them. Remember the Afghans are used to extreme violence. It’s a way of life. A tool to survive in a harsh environment.
In my opinion the best way to tackle this, And that is; first destroy the poppy fields that will impact the least farmers. (small fields, and little control from the drugsgangs). Offer the farmers that are effected compensation by giving them money and others ways of farming. And give them security from that gangs. Then after this works spread the word and expand it.
Secondly, and that’s the hardest part. Drive a wedge between the different fighting groups, so that they cannot undermine your goals, by using a lot of diplomacy, bribing and if that not works, a big stick, (carefully used…)
Third, education: If people are educated, people make wise decisions, and are less easily bullied by people with big mouths.
India is pretty fiercely independent, and are smart enough to stay out of the Afghanistan war. If I am remembering correctly despite fighting with the allies in WW2 (2Million+ volunteer army!) in exchange for independence from the British, they voted that Pearl Harbor was not Japanese aggression and was a response to US defense of China at the war crimes trials after Japan’s defeat. Point being that they always keep their own counsel. If they thought getting involved in Afghanistan was a good idea, they already would have done so.
That said, we used to be able to count on public opinion in India until our chicken fried president came along and made a mess of things.
null does remember correctly: the Indian member of the tribunal adjudicating on Japanese war crimes did offer a dissenting opinion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radhabinod_Pal
Afghanistan is not going to work until the realities of power are recognized. NATO is trying to impose a new reality of power that the west does not have the will to accomplish in the face of those powers that have a far stronger stake in it than we do. The same Pakistani groups that support destabilization of Afghanistan are not going to kindly go away, and there is no good way of deleting them from the equation. The Taliban have endless reserves of cannon fodder and have the means to continue feeding them under the radar.
Ask yourself this: What is the endgame for the U.S.? What is the endgame for the Taliban? What is the endgame for the Pakistani elites who support them? What is the endgame for other NATO allies?
The surge in Iraq began to work because after three years of strife the sides in Iraq began to stabilize. That is, those sides that lost, lost and those sides that won, won as much as they could. Once the coalition stopped trying to enforce their own ideas of the divisions in the country then those sides could sort it all out. So the Sunni ‘awakening council’ could turn their attentions on the outsiders causing trouble, the Shiites could begin politicking amongst themselves, and the criminal gangs could find their level of comfort in this ‘new order’. By criminal gangs I also include those who found positions in the new government. And of course Iran could find their level of influence.
India does have a stake in Afghanistan but they already have a conflict of their own in Kashmir which is a proxy cold war with Pakistan. So they are already involved and have no wish to escalate that when both sides possess nuclear weapons. They have their own volatile conditions to contend with.
Well, Afghanistan sucks. It’s a mountainous land with very few roads and very little infrastructure. It’s difficult to maintain any real security when you’re dealing with the most backwards place on earth.
Ultimately, we face some pretty major problems in that region. For one, Pakistan is unable or unwilling to deal with insurgents who live just inside their border. So we’re left with two options, either let them get away, or invade Pakistan. Right now, we’ve been taking potshots across the border, but haven’t made any major aggressive troop movements. This has to be handled delicately, unless we want to start a war with a nuclear power whose government has been as willing to work with us as their population will allow.
The second big problem we face is that the population of Afghanistan is so poor and so powerless that they will do whatever it takes to survive, including cooperating with the Taliban. We should begin a program of aggressive investment into the country, building roads, power plants, schools, etc. Unlike Iraq or Japan, we aren’t there to “rebuild”. There’s never been anything there in the first place. We should simply begin purchasing the poppy crop of the entire country. Pay the farmers to grow the only thing they know how to grow (poppies). We can then just go and dump it in the ocean for all I care — we don’t need the crop, but buying it will have two powerful benefits. First, we give farmers the ability to support their families, and second, we deny one of the prime sources of the Taliban’s income — the illegal opiate trade.
This war will require unique thinking and non-traditional methods. We’re not fighting to kill the bad guys, we’re fighting to stabilize a country.
The war in afghanistan is the leftover of a previous failed policy: diverting troops to Iraq.
If uprooting the Taliban and driving them to Pakistan was not enought, then we must ask why.
The answer is pretty clear: Pakistan personel is working as the rear guard of the Taliban.
What to do about it?
Since Pakistan is and was a very bad choice for an ally, given their visceral support for the Taliban, we must reconsider the posibility that for usa and india, a joint task force to deter pakistan might be needed. We should work on that front, with a view to cleaning up that part of the subcontinent.
If India is not amenable to such solution, then we have no other recourse than to get out of afghanistan. The logistics of staying over in afghanistan, policing a fragile government facing insurgents across the border with pakistan is going to be untenable, soon, very soon.
Joint work with responsible allies like India, is the only possible way to extricate ourselves from that region in a meaningful way. In fact, it might be the only way out, given the present geostrategic conditions in the area created by the unbelievable evil actions undertaken by the chicken hawks.
It will take a trulhy patriotic administration to do it. It won’t be easy. If the Indians want the partnership, It will be a bloody, a very bloody affair. If they don’t, it will be a moment of shame for usa.