Is America's commitment to the war in Afghanistan waning? NATO running out of time?

War on Terror

24 Sep 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com

Is America's commitment to the war in Afghanistan waning? NATO running out of time?

Could Mr Obama's commitment to fight the "good" war in Afghanistan be fading? Two recent developments are bound to influence his thinking. First, support for the war is declining. A national CNN/Opinion Research poll in mid-September found 39% in favour of the war in Afghanistan compared with 58% against. Embarrassingly for a Democratic president whose concessions on health reform have already annoyed many on the left of his own party, most of the support comes from Republicans. A second factor weighing heavily on the administration is the blatant ballot-stuffing that occurred during last month's fraud-ridden presidential election in Afghanistan. NATO is running out of time in Afghanistan: On August 31st he submitted his long-awaited review to NATO leaders, saying "the situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable." The assessment is confidential (and bleak, it is said) but the commander's priorities are known, not least from a directive to his troops of five days earlier containing the bull-and-matador simile. They are: protect the Afghan population rather than kill or capture insurgents; build up Afghan forces; boost the legitimacy of the government in Kabul and improve the co-ordination of civilian aid. The Taliban and the Western-backed Afghan government are fighting for the allegiance of the Afghan people, says the general; the people will decide who wins. -- The Economist URL of this page: http://newageislam.net/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1791 -----   America and Afghanistan Still necessary?   Sep 22nd 2009 | WASHINGTON, DC   Is America's commitment to the war in Afghanistan waning? WHEN he was campaigning to be president, Barack Obama said over again that Afghanistan was the necessary war, the one that was justified by al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 but which had been starved of resources because of the unnecessary war in Iraq. Since taking office he has generally been as good as his word. He deployed an additional 17,000 troops, declaring in March that if the Afghan government fell to the Taliban, the country would "again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can." In May he fired General David McKiernan and sent a new man, General Stanley McChrystal, to command the American and coalition forces. Now, however, the new man is asking for still more soldiers—and it is not clear whether Mr Obama will let him have them.   General McChrystal's assessment of the job he faces in Afghanistan, leaked to the Washington Post on Monday, pulls no punches. He says bluntly that success cannot be taken for granted, that the overall situation is deteriorating in the face of a resilient and growing insurgency, and that America and NATO are in urgent need of a completely re-engineered and "properly resourced" counter-insurgency campaign. He does not specify how many additional forces he will need. Indeed, he is careful to say that resources alone will not win the war. But he does say that "under-resourcing could lose it". And although he thinks it would be ideal if Afghan security forces could lead the fight, he concludes that they will not be strong enough soon enough, so coalition forces will have to bridge the gap. Once the coalition has adopted its new strategy, the general adds, "we must signal unwavering commitment to see it through to success."   As it happens, Mr Obama had a perfect opportunity to send just such a signal on September 20th, when he appeared on several of America's Sunday talk shows in an effort to boost support for health reform. He has had the general's report for several weeks and the White House confirms that he has read it. But no indication of unwavering commitment was forthcoming—if anything, the opposite. "Until I'm satisfied that we've got the right strategy I'm not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there—beyond what we already have," he told NBC's "Meet the Press". "I'm not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan or saving face or, in some way—you know, sending a message that America is here for the duration." This was not a case of a president being caught on the hop. Robert Gibbs, his press secretary, told reporters on Monday that an overall assessment of strategy in Afghanistan was continuing inside the administration and would not be completed for several more weeks. No decision would be made about sending more troops until it was. And this assessment, Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said last week, was starting from "first principles".   Could Mr Obama's commitment to fight the "good" war in Afghanistan be fading? Two recent developments are bound to influence his thinking. First, support for the war is declining. A national CNN/Opinion Research poll in mid-September found 39% in favour of the war in Afghanistan compared with 58% against. Embarrassingly for a Democratic president whose concessions on health reform have already annoyed many on the left of his own party, most of the support comes from Republicans. A second factor weighing heavily on the administration is the blatant ballot-stuffing that occurred during last month's fraud-ridden presidential election in Afghanistan.   Although General McChrystal calls for additional resources, the chief conclusion of his leaked report is that victory will depend not on killing more Taliban fighters but on winning the confidence of the people, many of whom have been alienated by widespread corruption under President Hamid Karzai and have "little reason to support their government". This crisis of confidence, the general argues, has created fertile ground for the insurgency, which will not be defeated until Afghanistan has a capable government of its own. "A foreign army alone cannot beat an insurgency," he says. Mr Obama, it seems, may not be willing to send out a bigger one until he is persuaded that Afghanistan has a government that he too can believe in. Source: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14489971 -----   McChrystal in the bull ring NATO is running out of time in Afghanistan Sep 3rd 2009 | KABUL   CALL it the "Matador Doctrine": a beast charges pointlessly at the bullfighter's cape, exhausting itself and suffering endless small wounds, until it succumbs to a weaker opponent. Stanley McChrystal, NATO's commander in Afghanistan, says his troops have been acting like a powerful but stupid bull lunging after insurgents; without a change of tactics NATO may yet have its ears cut off by the Taliban.   After nearly eight years of war, the allies' weariness is showing. The latest opinion polls say the American public is gloomy about the fight in Afghanistan and increasingly resistant to sending more troops there. Parts of the Democratic Party, in particular, are hostile to the war and the White House is nervous. General McChrystal knows he has little time to turn things around.   On August 31st he submitted his long-awaited review to NATO leaders, saying "the situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable." The assessment is confidential (and bleak, it is said) but the commander's priorities are known, not least from a directive to his troops of five days earlier containing the bull-and-matador simile. They are: protect the Afghan population rather than kill or capture insurgents; build up Afghan forces; boost the legitimacy of the government in Kabul and improve the co-ordination of civilian aid. The Taliban and the Western-backed Afghan government are fighting for the allegiance of the Afghan people, says the general; the people will decide who wins.   Such ideas have been American orthodoxy on counter-insurgency for nearly three years, adopted successfully in Iraq and less successfully by previous commanders in Afghanistan. General McChrystal's directive on the need for units to drive vehicles courteously is little different from the order issued by his sacked predecessor, General David McKiernan, and posted at NATO bases: "We can't win if you drive recklessly."   But if the theory is the same, the implementation may be different. General McChrystal has already sharply reduced the frequency of air strikes even as Western military casualties are at their highest since the fall of the Taliban. His report emphasises the "reintegration" of Taliban fighters—don't call it "reconciliation"—to try to draw away as many as possible of those who fight for money or tribal honour rather than for religious ideology.   The general wants much closer "partnering" of Western troops with Afghan forces, from common headquarters to joint platoons. He calls for the accelerated training of Afghan forces, to nearly 220,000 soldiers and policemen by the end of next year, with the option of nearly doubling that number to 400,000 if, as is likely, security conditions do not improve. This week a Taliban suicide bomber killed the Afghan deputy intelligence chief, Abdullah Laghmani, and more than 20 others.   General McChrystal has not openly said what his entourage agrees on: to protect the population, NATO will need more troops than the 110,000 it will have by the end of the year after the reinforcements ordered by Barack Obama. A request for more may come in a second report later this month and will depend not just on military calculations, but on two political ones: will Afghans see a bigger NATO presence as an occupying force? Will voters in the West agree to sink more blood and treasure in the Hindu Kush?   On both counts the task would be greatly eased if the Afghan leader, President Hamid Karzai, were not so damaged by the ineffectiveness and corruption of his government. Last month's presidential election was a chance to re-launch his leadership. But the claims of widespread ballot-rigging are tainting him further. Afghan officials have been flooded with more than 2,000 complaints of fraud. Mr Karzai's main challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister, has presented evidence of forged ballots, coercion and other irregularities. He urges his supporters to stay calm, but says he will accept neither defeat nor a unity government.   On September 2nd, with over 60% of stations reporting results, Mr Karzai had 47.3% of the vote against 32.6% for Mr Abdallah. This excludes most votes in the turbulent south, which diplomats think will carry Mr Karzai over the 50% mark to avoid a run-off. The president would no doubt then reward former warlords who supported him with jobs and spoils. Western officials seem glumly reconciled to another term for Mr Karzai. General McChrystal's directive tells soldiers to "confront self-serving officials who monopolise wealth and power and abuse people's trust". Easier said than done. Source: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14376264 URL of this page: http://newageislam.net/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1791