Afghanistan Reservations

President Obama has announced his new strategy for Afghanistan. The strategy seems to have four parts. Three parts are described here:

(1) “That this policy has a concise and clear goal (protecting Americans from al Qaeda by making sure this terrorist band does not have any safe havens in Afghanistan or Pakistan)”.

(2) “That it has a regional focus (Afghanistan and Pakistan)”.

(3) “That it has a strong civilian component (i.e., sending not just more troops, but more advisers to work on development and related matters).”

The fourth part, of course,  is the increase in troop levels (let’s not use the word “surge”) by 30,000, plus a possible additional 10,000 in 2010 (here):

The U.S. military has 38,000 troops in Afghanistan, and the number is projected to rise to 68,000 with deployments scheduled for this year. Those deployments include a 4,000-strong contingent of trainers from the 4th brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, 17,000 other combat troops, a 2,800-strong combat aviation brigade and thousands of support forces whose placement was not publicly announced, the Pentagon said.

If approved, the additional 10,000 troops -- including a combat brigade of about 4,000 troops and a division headquarters of about 2,000 -- would bring the total approved for next year to 78,000, officials say.

What I like:

((  (1)   I like the regional focus. Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, is our more important strategic interest in the region. Keeping Pakistan stable, or least keeping its nuclear weapons in responsible hands, should be our top regional priority.

     (2) I like the emphasis on a strong civilian component. It’s probably not strong enough, but it is an improvement.

My reservations:

((   (1)  The costs may be too high to deny al Qaeda “any safe havens in Afghanistan or Pakistan.” If that means driving al Qaeda totally out or defeating them there, that’s a bit too much to expect. This is a difficult fighting terrain. And, they will just relocate in another failed state. Better to just harass and contain them there, and try to limit their abilities to strike us.

(   (2) We cannot both “win” in Afghanistan and eradicate the poppy/opium trade there. That would be expecting too much. Too much of the economy is dependent upon the opium trade. Any political process to create a stronger, better central government will have top face that fact. What to do about drugs in Afghanistan is under reconsideration (here):

  Holbrooke did speak somewhat candidly about a vexing part of the Afghanistan problem: drugs. What to do about the opium flowing out of Afghanistan has always been a knotty element of US policy regarding Afghanistan. How much of a priority should it be? (Simply put, if you attack the the opium trade, warlords and locals get pissed off and join or support the other side.) Asked about the priority of drug fighting in the Afghanistan review, Holbrooke, as he was leaving the briefing, said "We're going to have to rethink the drug problem." That was interesting. He went on: "a complete rethink." He noted that the policymakers who had worked on the Afghanistan review "didn't come to a firm, final conclusion" on the opium question. "It's just so damn complicated," Holbrooke explained. Did that mean that the opium eradication efforts in Afghanistan should be canned? "You can't eliminate the whole eradication program," he exclaimed.

  So without a drug policy component for our Afghanistan strategy, the US really does not yet have a comprehensive strategy.

(3) I predict more troops will be needed. NATO is not going to supply them.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Holbrooke understood early on that European members of NATO would not provide many troops beyond the approximately 30,000 already there, led by Britain, Germany and France. Instead, the Europeans will focus on the training of the police, of the army and of the civilian administration. The new goal, according to American military planners and NATO-nation diplomats, is to produce an Afghan Army of some 220,000 troops and an enlarged police force of 180,000. (here)

 I think the US needs to approach new parties, such as China, to supply a significant number of troops.

(4) I’ve read nothing about any significant upgrading of training in the languages of Afghanistan, either by the military or civilians. If we are serious about our efforts there, we will need many more soldiers and civilian fluent in Afghanistan languages.