Monday, September 28, 2009 - 11:41 AM

By Michael Cohen
What to do in Afghanistan has become the dominant
question in Washington. Gen. Stanley McChrystal's recently leaked strategic
review suggests more troops are needed; Democrats in Congress are assertively
counseling against such a move; and U.S. President Barack Obama's administration
appears increasingly concerned that mission creep is underway.
But the debate over troop levels is a distraction from the real problem in
Afghanistan -- a dubious counterinsurgency strategy that is based on faulty
assumptions and unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved. McChrystal's
leaked review only provides more evidence of the desperate need for a new
course in Afghanistan.
One of the fundamental precepts of any successful counterinsurgency operation
is the support of the host government: If the United States is to wage war for
a local government, the government must be a dependable ally. Yet, as
McChrystal's review makes clear, the Afghan government is anything but: "The
weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread
corruption and abuse of power by various officials ... have given Afghans
little reason to support their government."
To make matters worse, McChrystal sees serious holes in the capabilities of U.S.
and NATO forces to wage counterinsurgency. NATO, the review argues, "does not
sufficiently appreciate the dynamics in local communities, nor how the
insurgency, corruption, incompetent officials, power-brokers, and criminality all
combine to affect the Afghan population."
If the Afghan government is riddled with corruption and NATO doesn't fully
understand how to prosecute a counterinsurgency strategy, it is hard to
understand why McChrystal is advocating such an approach in the first place. Hamid
Karzai's government basically stole the recent presidential election. It hardly
seems on the verge of ending its corrupt ways. Moreover, there is little reason
to believe that a full multinational embrace of counterinsurgency doctrine can
be achieved in what is becoming an increasingly compressed time frame.
Throw in the problem of largely unmolested Afghan Taliban safe havens across
the border in Pakistan and the fact that in some parts of Southern Afghanistan
the Taliban are as popular as the Karzai government, and you have a situation
where the lack of U.S .troops and political will, as well as Pakistani and
Afghan support, is undermining the stated mission.
McChrystal offers smart ideas for how to turn the tide, but with declining
public support for the mission -- on both sides of the Atlantic -- it's
unlikely he will have the opportunity to implement the changes he is
recommending.
Instead, the president should demand his commander go back to the original
objective for the mission -- disrupting, defeating, and dismantling al Qaeda.
This means discarding the dream of nation-building in Afghanistan and focusing
instead on targeting al Qaeda in Pakistan (a process already occurring through
successful drone attacks on terrorist leaders there) and moving toward a more
realistic containment approach of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
To accomplish this, the United States must first prioritize training the Afghan
security services. This doesn't necessarily mean a huge force, which would be
difficult to achieve and potentially destabilizing for the region. Military
trainers should focus on building a smaller, more reliable force that can serve
as an effective military counterweight to the Taliban.
Second, General McChrystal has made it his top priority to "protect the
population," but the U.S. and NATO forces lack the resources and local support to
complete such a mission. Instead, the United States needs to place greater
priority on targeting the Taliban enemy and regaining the military initiative.
Along these lines, McChrystal must prioritize his operations to the north of
the country where the Taliban are making inroads but lack the support of the
local population. Ongoing combat operations in southern Afghanistan have done
little to shift the military balance, particularly as the Taliban have used
Western attention to the region as an opportunity to attack elsewhere in the
country. U.S. and NATO forces should consolidate the gains made elsewhere and
for now lessen the military footprint in the south.
McChrystal has laid out an ambitious, but unrealistic, counterinsurgency agenda
for Afghanistan. It is the president's job to step in and set a new more
counterterrorism-focused course that is realistic and that furthers U.S.
interests in the region. The uncertainty in Washington on what to do next has
given him just that opportunity. He must seize it.
Michael A. Cohen is a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation.
MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images
These are constructive suggestions. Faults can be found with them, but this is true of any other course in Afghanistan, including the one now attributed to Gen. McChrystal.
Of the dangers now being warned against, the greatest seems to me to be the narrative problem discussed yesterday by Sec. Gates. The imaginative people we are fighting in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan appear to see an opportunity to declare another great victory over a superpower, an opportunity we would be wise to deny them. Should Afghan policy be recast along the lines suggested here, care would have to be taken in how the new policy is presented.
There is also the tribal issue to consider. Effectively, the course being suggested here would involve abandoning to the enemy much of the Pashtun-majority areas in Afghanistan. This would introduce an interesting dynamic into our relationship with the Afghan president and Pashtun tribal factions committed, for one reason or another, to him. It might even lead much further than that, to an eventual hardening of the division between the majority- Pashtun areas of the country and the rest of Afghanistan.
This is obviously speculation. However, we cannot simply ignore the nearly eight years that have passed since the Afghan war started. During most of this time, the United States and NATO merely tread water while the enemy slowly recovered its morale after its devastating defeat in the fall of 2001. Some things that might have been possible had they been attempted early in the Bush administration are probably not possible now, not without a commitment of time and resources far greater than the American public will support. In theory, protecting the Afghan population would probably work better than a straight counter-terrorist campaign would, but we are not fighting this war in theory. Perhaps we should begin by protecting the population, as Gen. McChrystal's people suggest, just not all of them.
--different political systems, votes & voting & voters? so what? they can easily be bought or had by various and sundry illicit means and ultimatums and pressure tactics (i.e., Venezuela, Bolivia), voting does not mean there is democracy nor representation by the people, for the people.
--Why is the UN not taking the lead there? This is not a bilateral situation, it is a global situation, and all involved and concerned parties should be involved and represented by a global institution.
--arms & drugs: who really profits from what is going on in Afghanistan? Who makes the arms? Who sells them? Who ships them? Who buys the drugs? Who fuels the drug trade? Someone might wish to take a deeper look at the entire military-industrial complex, contractors, defense industry, and try to "follow the money".
--has anyone asked the Afghan people what they want? or are they too afraid to say? or are those asking incapable of speaking the native languages? What if they were to say they do not want a western-style democracy or republican form of government: could the US live with that statement of self-determination?
--religion, religious influence: just how threatened are the Islamic clergy? As in Iran, these are the dinosaurs who fear extinction and loss of power and privilege. Women's rights, education, empowerment? Ha, not while they are around!
There appear to be more questions than answers, but, bottom line, are the right people asking the deep, troubling, difficult questions that might not have any easy answers?
New counterterrorism strategy = same old failed strategy
Michael, I always enjoy your writing on US politics, but I have to disagree with much of what you're proposing here.
Sure, the current situation is a highly problematic mess, and McChrystal faces an uphill battle. We can all see that.
But what you're proposing is the status quo ante: targeting the Taliban and conducting counter-terrorist strikes - both elements that have largely served to alienate the local populations and have proven unsuccessful over the past eight years. It's why Gen. McKiernan is no longer in charge.
Second, we can all agree on the importance of training the ANA and ANP - it's already a priority and has been for some time. But it's a project that will take years. The pressing question is what to do in the meantime.
Gen. McChrystal's COIN approach, whatever its limitations, is still a far a better option than a "new more counterterrorism-focused course" -- which sounds a lot like the old, more counterterrorism-focused course, which hasn't been working out so well since 2001. Ask the folks who spend time on the ground rather than inside the Beltway and you'll find they tend to agree.
I do agree on the need to do more in the north -- particularly with development assistance, rather than just military deployments - which also risk irritating locals further.
The focus on more troops is simplistic and misses the complex picture of what has been done wrong - and what could be done better.
Political corruption can be counterbalanced by a restructuring of the government to cede more power to locally-elected leaders at the province and district level, civil service reform, increased salaries, and channeling more assistance through accountable government mechanisms with tighter oversight, particularly at the local level. Put that together with a counter-insurgency approach that's focused more on stabilizing those districts where the Taliban can be kept out or pushed out, and we just might have a successful strategy.
After everything they've suffered for the past decades, the people of Afghanistan deserve better than to have the international community walk away from them. Doing so would be a discredit to America and its allies.
"The focus on more troops is simplistic and misses the complex picture of what has been done wrong - and what could be done better."
Exactly right.
The Afghan's need more than just protection. In popular demand -- justice.
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE