Other Newspapers' Opinions: Afghanistan review necessary
Tuesday, September 29, 2009 10:34 AM PDT
The Obama administration thought it had charted a course forward in Afghanistan last March: Send more U.S. troops, resist the Taliban by taking and holding territory, win popular support by providing security and reducing corruption, strengthen the Afghan military and police, and gradually create conditions under which a stable Afghanistan can defend itself. But now Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says in a leaked report that the strategy is doomed without still more troops. As estimates of the difficulty of achieving U.S. aims are raised, those aims need to be clarified and revised.
When the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan eight years ago, the mission seemed straightforward: Disrupt al-Qaeda as punishment for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and dislodge the Taliban government that gave sanctuary to the terrorist network. Those objectives were achieved within a matter of weeks.
But neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda suffered a defeat so decisive as to be permanent. While the United States became distracted in Iraq, the enemy in Afghanistan regrouped, found safe havens in neighboring Pakistan and launched an increasingly deadly insurgency.
The United States and its allies came to a belated understanding that it was not only fighting against the Taliban, but also for the support of the Afghan people. The hearts-and-minds campaign, McChrystal warns, is going poorly.
The government supported by the United States and its allies is comprehensively corrupt, a fact underscored by the country’s recent elections, while civilian battle casualties continue to feed public anger.
Afghans blame the United States and its allies for being unable to guarantee their safety, while at the same time they resent the presence of a foreign military force.
More troops — McChrystal didn’t specify how many — might allow for an acceleration of the timetable for training Afghan troops and police. They might also, as some Afghans warn, aggravate the resentments that already serve the Taliban’s purposes. For that reason, the general says U.S. strategy must be refocused: “Without a new strategy, the mission should not be resourced.”
The report may have been leaked as a means of forcing Obama’s hand — if the president declines to support a further military escalation, he risks being criticized for ignoring military commanders’ advice. Yet McChrystal seems to be calling for leadership as much as for additional troops. And Obama says there will be no additional troop commitments until after a review of strategy in Afghanistan.
Such a review is essential — and it must include an assessment of what the strategy is meant to achieve. It’s doubtful that the United States and its allies, many of whom are wavering already, can create a peaceful, democratic and united Afghanistan at any price.
Lesser objectives, such as a nation of largely autonomous ethnic enclaves whose quarrels are confined within Afghanistan’s borders, would be more realistic and less costly.
At some point, Afghanistan will have to fend for itself — and sending another wave of troops is not likely to bring that day closer.
— The Eugene Register Guard
