OVER the next few weeks, the Obama administration will be rolling out their mission plan for continuing military support of the NATO occupation in Afghanistan. A lot of the element of that plan will be familiar and obvious to folks who've been following the president's statements behind his decision to escalate the U.S. force there by as many as 17,000 troops.
The increase of force by Pres. Obama is primarily a stop-gap measure to bolster the defense of the Afghan regime in anticipation of summer violence surrounding the upcoming Afghan elections. There's also an offensive mission for the incoming troops which involves reinforcing the scarce patrols in the south at the Af/Pak border which are tasked with holding back the militarized resistance they routed into Pakistan from returning into Afghanistan.
"The increase is necessary to stabilize a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, which has not received the strategic attention, direction, and resources it urgently requires," Mr. Obama said in announcing the deployment.
The elements of the
new mission plan for the Afghanistan will reportedly highlight the increase in foreign aid in the U.S. budget which envisions a tripling of funds to Pakistan to help their military battle back what the Obama WH terms 'extremists' in their country with Pakistan-based drones and support for their military. Billions of dollars more are to be provided for
humanitarian aid and assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan to develop roads, electricity, schools and agriculture projects.
A major part of the comprehensive approach to Afghanistan reported, the Obama administration envisions a heightened diplomatic effort (already underway) to convince NATO allies and other countries in the region to step up their military presence and support to eventually enable the U.S. to reduce their military footprint in the Muslim-dominated region. The appeal is for more civilian and expertise to direct the multitude of reconstruction and economic development projects planned.
In line with the
interagency review of Afghanistan and Pakistan policy ordered by Pres. Obama - which is due to report later this month in anticipation of the upcoming NATO summit in April - former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, national security adviser James Jones, and U.S. envoy to AF/Pak Richard Holbrooke are working to 'broaden' the administration's approach beyond the military aspects of the occupation.
One of the main objectives for their continuing military mission in Afghanistan cited by the Obama administration is to 'deny' al-Qaeda and their Taliban (and other) militarized supporters a 'safe haven' from which to launch or plan attacks. The nation-building defense of the Afghan regime - escalated, almost as an afterthought, by the Bush administration - is an integral part of their continuing military operation.
"The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, and al-Qa'ida supports the insurgency and threatens America from its safe haven along the Pakistani border," he said in his announcement of the increase of force.
"There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the al-Qaida and Taliban bases along the border," Obama said in January. "And there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Vice Pres. Biden, in January,
predicted an increase in American casualties in Afghanistan as a result of the increased deployment and offensive engagements against the resisting population. "I hate to say it, but yes, I think there will be. There will be an uptick," he said.
The primacy of the diplomatic side of the Obama administration's new mission plan, however, has been foreshadowed by comments from military and WH officials emphasizing the limits of military force in achieving their nation-building and stability goals in Afghanistan.
"I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means," Obama told
CBC in February.
That sentiment is an echo of the military leaders in his administration. NATO's top general in 2006, and Pres. Obama's top intelligence adviser today, Gen. James Jones who argued that 'success' in Afghanistan will not be won by the military alone. “The real challenge in Afghanistan for success is how well the reconstruction mission and the international aid mission is focused,” Jones
said in an October 4 speech.
The past intention of the military mission in Afghanistan, Gen. Jones had
said, was to "signal to the insurgents, the government of Afghanistan and the people of the region, as well as to the international community, that NATO forces would not back down from exercising robust and overwhelming combat power when necessary.”
“It’s important that we understand that the way ahead in Afghanistan is to link any successful operational mission with visible, tangible demonstration of aid and relief available to the local population . . . If military action is not followed up by visible, tangible, sizable and correctly focused reconstruction and development efforts, then we will be in Afghanistan for a much longer period of time than we need to be,” he said.
The 2008 National Defense Strategy approved by then (and now) SoD Robert Gates
concludes that "success" in Afghanistan is "crucial to "winning the 'Long War' against violent extremist movements" but it alone "will not bring victory."
"The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies," the NDS said.
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, warned Congress in September that, "We can't kill our way to 'victory', and no armed force anywhere -- no matter how good -- can deliver these keys alone."
"It is not possible to win this or succeed in Afghanistan militarily alone," Mullen told soldiers in a February
speech. "It has to be met with a commensurate surge from other agencies, particularly the State Department, in order for us to start generating success in 2009, which is a critical year," he said.
Perhaps the most controversial aspects of that diplomacy has been openly broached in an extraordinarily civil discussion by military and administration officials of 'outreach' and 'negotiation' with 'moderate' and 'peaceful' elements of the Taliban in an attempt to dissuade them away from their support and assistance to the militarized resistance elements in the country.
The discussion began in response to questions about the ceasefire negotiated by the Pakistan government with Taliban in the Swat region in their country in an effort to halt the seemingly unending, corrosive cycle of violent attacks and reprisals. SoD Gates was asked about the deal and
replied that: "If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that."
President Obama echoed the SoD's openness to conciliation in Afghanistan, telling the NYT that, "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region, but the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex."
"If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda in Iraq," Obama
said. "The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think ... in the southern regions of the country, you're seeing them attack us in ways that we have not seen previously."
"The national government still has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people. And so it's going to be critical for us to not only, get through these national elections to stabilize the security situation, but we've got to recast our policy so that our military, diplomatic and development goals are all aligned to ensure that al-Qaeda and extremists that would do us harm don't have the kinds of safe havens that allow them to operate," President Obama said.
Vice Pres. Biden provided the most comprehensive opinion of the administration's view of the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in his remarks at the
NATO press conference Tuesday. "Five-percent of the Taliban is incorrigible, not susceptible to anything other than being defeated. Another 25 percent or so are not quite sure, in my view, the intensity of their commitment to the insurgency," he said. "And roughly 70 percent are involved because of the money, because of them being -- getting paid.
"To state the obvious, as you know, the Taliban, most of whom are Pashtun -- you have 60 percent of the Pashtun population in Pakistan; only 40 percent live in Afghanistan. The objectives that flow from Kandahar may be different than Quetta, may be different than the FATA. So it's worth exploring," Biden told reporters.
"I think the President is accurate; we are not now winning the war, but the war is far from lost -- number one," Biden continued. "Number two, with regard to the experience, it is different, but not wholly different. We engaged in Iraq the most extreme elements of the Sunni resistance in Anbar Province. We ended up with an operation called the Sons of Iraq, because we accurately determined, as some of us had pointed out in numerous visits there, that the idea that every Sunni was a supporter of -- every Sunni insurgent was a supporter of al Qaeda was simply not true -- simply not true," Biden said.
"The idea of what concessions would be made is well beyond the scope of my being able to answer, except to say that whatever is initiated will have to be ultimately initiated by the Afghan government, and will have to be such that it would not undermine a legitimate Afghan government," Biden said. "But I do think it is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state."
"Whether or not it will bear as much fruit remains to be seen," Biden concluded. "There's only one way, and that is to engage -- engage in the process, looking for pragmatic solutions to accomplishing what our goal is; that is an Afghanistan that is, at minimum goal, is not a haven for terror and is able to sustain itself on its own and provide its own security."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
