Member Login Become a Member
Advertisement

A Middle Way On Afghanistan?

  |  
09.02.2009 at 09:55am

A Middle Way On Afghanistan? – David Ignatius, Washington Post opinion.

It’s the nature of Afghanistan that nothing there ever works out quite the way outsiders expect, and that certainly was the case with last month’s presidential election. Rather than producing a mandate for good governance, as US officials once hoped, the balloting has instead brought allegations of fraud, political squabbling and delay, and a new set of headaches in the war against the Taliban…

To get the flavor of McChrystal’s strategy (the actual document remains classified), I reviewed the counterinsurgency guidance he has prepared for his troops. The headline reads: “Protecting the people is the mission. The conflict will be won by persuading the population, not by destroying the enemy.” …

The counterinsurgency doctrine McChrystal is advocating has excited a new generation of military officers. I’ve seen it applied in outposts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it’s impossible not to be impressed by the dedication and even the idealism of its proponents. But there is little hard evidence that it will work in a country as large and impoverished as Afghanistan. Even in Iraq, the successes attributed to counterinsurgency came as much from bribing tribal leaders and assassinating insurgents as from fostering development projects and building trust…

More at The Washington Post.

What’s Right With Afghanistan – Michael O’Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, Wall Street Journal opinion.

The national mood on the Afghanistan war has soured fast, and it’s not hard to see why. American combat deaths have exceeded 100 for the summer, the recent Afghan election was tainted by accusations of intimidation and fraud, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen says the security environment there is “deteriorating.” Meanwhile, congressional leaders worry about the war’s impact on the health-care debate and the Obama presidency more generally. Antiwar groups are starting to talk about “another Vietnam.” Opposition is mounting to the current policy – to say nothing of possible requests for additional troops from the US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The questions and concerns being raised are legitimate. Clearly, the mission has not been going well. Problems with our basic strategy, especially on the economic and development side, still need immediate attention. Moreover, our Afghan friends have a crucial role to play in both security and development, and if they fail to do so the overall warfighting and state-building effort will not succeed.

However, it is important to remember our assets, and not just our liabilities, in the coming debate over Afghanistan policy this fall. Democracies sometimes talk themselves out of keeping up the faith in tough situations, and we should avoid any such tendency towards defeatism, especially so early in the execution of the Obama administration’s new military/civilian/economic strategy, which combines stronger and more widespread counterinsurgency measures with increased nation-building efforts. Indeed, the US, our NATO allies, and the future Afghan government – be it another Hamid Karzai presidency, or a new administration – have a number of major strengths in this mission…

More at The Wall Street Journal.

About The Author

Article Discussion: