thedrifter
08-20-09, 08:57 AM
National Review Online: The Other Surge
by The Editors National Review Online
August 20, 2009
President Obama campaigned on Afghanistan as the good and essential war, in contrast to the war in Iraq. The politics were obvious: Since the Democrats, in effect, favored losing in Iraq, they had to support the other war to bolster their national-security bona fides.
Although this left Obama's sincerity on the Afghan war open to doubt, so far he's made good on his words. But the testing has just begun. As Afghans go to the polls under threat of Taliban violence, their country is in a parlous state. President Hamid Karzai is hardly beloved but is likely to win in an inevitably messy election process that may not be accepted as legitimate by all sides. The Taliban insurgency still thrives in the south. And as the U.S. begins to surge more troops into the country, we will feel the pain just as we initially did in Iraq without seeing immediate, compensatory gain.
The coalition still hasn't gotten it quite right in Afghanistan. As Kimberly Kagan writes, "NATO forces have briefed counterinsurgency doctrine better than they have practiced it." Despite all the talk, the necessary effort still hasn't been made to protect the population, the center of gravity in any war of counterinsurgency. Part of the problem is that we have been in the wrong area. In the south, we have concentrated on rural Helmand province, partly as a matter of coalition politics. The British forces operating there and focusing on counternarcotics and development as much as the much more important task of counterinsurgency wanted to be reinforced and we obliged.
This has left Kandahar dangerously neglected. Connecting the county's north and south, and west and east, it is the largest population center in the south and the second biggest city in the country. It is the mythical home of the Taliban and the most important city in "Pashtunistan," which straddles the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Karzai family hails from there, and, therefore, its tribal politics play an outsized role in national politics. But we have basically had no troops in Kandahar and the Taliban has naturally benefited.
New commanding general Stanley McChrystal understands this and wants to fix it. All signs are that his ongoing review will call for greater emphasis on population security and classic counterinsurgency tactics and a significant increase in the size of Afghan forces. But this will require more U.S. troops, perhaps as many as 30,000 more, on top of the 21,000 new troops this year.
A request of that sort will surely make Obama's political minders blanch. On a trip in Afghanistan recently, even national security adviser Jim Jones said such a request would cause a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment" for the president. It shouldn't, if he is serious about winning the war. The Obama team can't be interested in repeating the mistake of a Bush administration that for far too long tried to win a war of counterinsurgency in Iraq with the minimum possible force, and only sent sufficient troops when it was almost too late. Despite our mistakes in Afghanistan, the people there still want us to succeed and still want something better than a return to the savagery of the Taliban, as witnessed by their bravery at the polls today.
On Monday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Obama said of Afghanistan, "This is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people." If he believes that, he'll continue to give his commanders what they need.
Ellie
by The Editors National Review Online
August 20, 2009
President Obama campaigned on Afghanistan as the good and essential war, in contrast to the war in Iraq. The politics were obvious: Since the Democrats, in effect, favored losing in Iraq, they had to support the other war to bolster their national-security bona fides.
Although this left Obama's sincerity on the Afghan war open to doubt, so far he's made good on his words. But the testing has just begun. As Afghans go to the polls under threat of Taliban violence, their country is in a parlous state. President Hamid Karzai is hardly beloved but is likely to win in an inevitably messy election process that may not be accepted as legitimate by all sides. The Taliban insurgency still thrives in the south. And as the U.S. begins to surge more troops into the country, we will feel the pain just as we initially did in Iraq without seeing immediate, compensatory gain.
The coalition still hasn't gotten it quite right in Afghanistan. As Kimberly Kagan writes, "NATO forces have briefed counterinsurgency doctrine better than they have practiced it." Despite all the talk, the necessary effort still hasn't been made to protect the population, the center of gravity in any war of counterinsurgency. Part of the problem is that we have been in the wrong area. In the south, we have concentrated on rural Helmand province, partly as a matter of coalition politics. The British forces operating there and focusing on counternarcotics and development as much as the much more important task of counterinsurgency wanted to be reinforced and we obliged.
This has left Kandahar dangerously neglected. Connecting the county's north and south, and west and east, it is the largest population center in the south and the second biggest city in the country. It is the mythical home of the Taliban and the most important city in "Pashtunistan," which straddles the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The Karzai family hails from there, and, therefore, its tribal politics play an outsized role in national politics. But we have basically had no troops in Kandahar and the Taliban has naturally benefited.
New commanding general Stanley McChrystal understands this and wants to fix it. All signs are that his ongoing review will call for greater emphasis on population security and classic counterinsurgency tactics and a significant increase in the size of Afghan forces. But this will require more U.S. troops, perhaps as many as 30,000 more, on top of the 21,000 new troops this year.
A request of that sort will surely make Obama's political minders blanch. On a trip in Afghanistan recently, even national security adviser Jim Jones said such a request would cause a "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment" for the president. It shouldn't, if he is serious about winning the war. The Obama team can't be interested in repeating the mistake of a Bush administration that for far too long tried to win a war of counterinsurgency in Iraq with the minimum possible force, and only sent sufficient troops when it was almost too late. Despite our mistakes in Afghanistan, the people there still want us to succeed and still want something better than a return to the savagery of the Taliban, as witnessed by their bravery at the polls today.
On Monday at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Obama said of Afghanistan, "This is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people." If he believes that, he'll continue to give his commanders what they need.
Ellie