Confusion at the White House
- A Campaign Promise Worth
Keeping: Campaigning in 2008, Barack Obama understood the
necessity of a strategy for success in Afghanistan. On March 27,
2009, as President, he announced his intention to keep this
promise, saying that "the safety of the world is at stake." Now, it
appears his focus is shifting, and Vice President Biden, who
opposed the successful surge in Iraq, is also opposing a surge in
Afghanistan.
- Afghanistan Should Be a Priority: General
Stanley McChrystal, Obama's handpicked commander of U.S. Forces in
Afghanistan, recently revealed he had only one meeting with the
President in almost three months. They met again briefly on Air
Force One while the President was in Copehagen since that comment.
SEIU President Andy Stern brags of weekly visits to the White
House.
-
Gates Flip-Flopping: It appears Defense
Secretary Gates is backtracking on supporting General McChrystal's
promising strategy for the war, rather embracing a minimalist
"small footprint" strategy that would greatly increase the
prospects for defeat. This strategy is sure to demoralize our
Afghan allies, prompt Afghans on the fence to side with insurgents,
and further energize the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other anti-American
forces in the region.
- That '80s Show: This is not similar to the
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, as some have argued. This mission
is supported by over 40 NATO allies and troop-contributing nations.
The Soviets had no international backing. The Afghan people support
the presence of coalition forces and want them to prevail, while
the Soviets were seen as occupiers. The Soviets did not face the
specter of a heightened terror threat in the case of their
withdrawal, as the U.S. does.
Failed Strategies
- Drones Cannot Win a War: The war cannot be
effectively waged merely with air power, predator drones, and
Special Forces. President Clinton launched cruise missiles at
easily replaceable al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and yet
al-Qaeda remained strong enough for 9/11. President Bush's
minimalist approach in 2001 was a contributing factor to problems
faced now that allowed Osama bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora in
2002.
- Counterterrorism vs. Counterinsurgency:
Washington opted to focus narrowly on counterterrorism goals in
Afghanistan -- rather than counterinsurgency operations -- in order
to free up military assets for the war in Iraq. This allowed the
Taliban to regroup across the border in Pakistan and make a violent
resurgence. The "small footprint" strategy also failed in Iraq
before it was abandoned for General Petraeus's successful
counterinsurgency strategy (the surge) in 2007.
- Offshore Offense? Despite these lessons from
the past, some still argue that an "offshore" strategy for
landlocked Afghanistan will work today. But half-measures -- the
hallmark of the "small footprint" strategy -- will not work.
Precise intelligence is needed to use smart bombs smartly. Yet few
Afghans would risk their lives to provide such intelligence unless
they are assured of protection against the Taliban's ruthless
retaliation.
A Winning Strategy
- Continue the Surge: It's too soon to write off
President Obama's well-considered surge strategy announced in
March. The 21,000 new troops are still deploying to the region and
have just begun offensive operations in southern Afghanistan. The
March strategy should be properly resourced and given time to
succeed.
- Listen to the Generals: The Commanding
Generals are reportedly asking for up to 40,000 more troops. They
know the recipe for success, and Obama's handpicked military
leadership should have the trust and unequivocal support of the
President.
- Return Clarity and Focus to the War: President
Obama must convince his political allies and the American public
that this is a war worth winning. Send the troops and resources
necessary for coalition forces to secure more regions, build up
Afghan army and police forces and work closely with them to defeat
the insurgents.
For more information, please visit: http://www.NationalSecurity.org