Obama Team Flubbing Afghanistan
By Larry Johnson on March 27, 2009 at 12:54 PM in Current Affairs
I had hoped that the Obama team, with input from the likes of General Jim Jones and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, would forge a sane policy in Afghanistan. Let’s be clear about one thing–the Bush Administration failed completely in Afghanistan. The mere fact that we are getting in deeper almost 8 years after 9-11 is prima facie evidence that the Bush policy was, at best, asleep at the switch.
What is striking about today’s announcement of a “new” policy is that there is little new and no indication that the Obama team even understands what needs to be done.
We cannot win a military victory in Afghanistan unless we commit to a long-term campaign that would cost in excess of $1 trillion and would require tripling the size of the U.S. military. If we were not in the grips of an impending global economic depression we might be able to entertain such a fantasy. Given the current economic realities we know that the military option is a non-starter.
Our biggest problem to date in terms of military operations is that we lack a coherent, integrated plan under the control of a single commander. NATO is doing its thing while U.S. conventional forces pursue their own agenda. Meanwhile, U.S. Special Operations forces and the CIA are pursuing their own objectives. Everyone is well intentioned but good intentions don’t and won’t quell the violence. Absent a single chain of command and a strategic campaign plan, the military resources currently employed in Afghanistan will continue to flail and, at times, operate at cross purposes. It is akin to a truck that is stuck in a ditch. Rather than putting a group behind the truck to push and a group in front to pull we have allowed four rescuers to attach their respective ropes on all four sides of the vehicle and they will pull in their own direction. That guarantees the truck will stay stuck in the ditch.
What is striking about the Obama announcement today is there is no there there. It is nothing. 4,000 additional troops on top of 17,000 already committed. That is only two thirds of what General McKiernan said that he needed:
United States President Barack Obama decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by General David McKiernan, the top commander of US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops in Afghanistan, and General David Petraeus, the Central Command chief, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to White House sources.
One other thing the press has missed–we do not have the infrastructure in place in Afghanistan yet to support the additional 21,000 troops. Building that will be a costly proposition as well but will be “stimulative” for KBR. And with more troops comes bigger logistics lines of communication, which already are shaky and frayed.
Here is the sad reality–the Obama team is still struggling to find a policy response. Sadly, the Obama team is making an empty gesture in Afghanistan that will not shift the political conditions on the ground in a direction that will make us safer. Worse, the tepid policy response will foster an impression that the U.S. is weak. We should not be surprised if our adversaries decided to test our resolve in other areas because they have calculated that we are drowning and have no vision for saving ourselves. It will be quite apparent as 2009 comes to an end that our dismal policy in Afghanistan is in serious trouble.
UPDATE–What Should We Do?
I realized that I failed to outline what we should be doing. These are the broad outlines of what our policy/strategy should be in Afghanistan:
1. Focus on equipping and enabling Afghan tribal forces to defend and protect their tribal territories. Right now our approach is fractured. The CIA’s paramilitary forces, who are comprised mainly of retired Special Forces vets, use traditional counter insurgency techniques of relying primarily on indigenous personnel to carry out military ops. U.S. Special Operations and conventional forces, however, work largely independent of the locals and conduct independent operations with little or no assistance from indigenous personnel.
2. Step up diplomatic efforts and assistance to get neighboring countries to control the borders. Ironically we have an easier task with Iran than Pakistan. Iran is battling a major problem with heroin use and wants to shut down the trafficking from Afghanistan. In this case we need to work with Iran to shut down the drug trafficking out of Afghanistan. Pakistan is a tougher nut to crack.
3. Identify and exploit tribal difference. The Pashtun tribes don’t recognize as inviolate the border separating Pakistan and Afghanistan. But the Pashtun is not a monolith. There are sub-tribes that do not like each other and we should try to capitalize on those differences.
4. Give military commanders what they need provided they establish and implement a single, coherent chain of command. What do I mean? I have a unique perspective on what is going on. I have some close friends who are CIA officers and have been on the ground recently in Afghanistan. I know from these sources how the CIA is operating. Similarly, I have close friends in the military, some are working in the conventional environment and some in the special operations world. There is no internal, coordinated approach at this time. Worst, there seems to be a basic assumption that there is someone in control and this problem is being addressed. There is no one in control, at least not yet, and the problem of fractured command and control remains in place.
We should have one simple focus–prevent Islamic extremists from reconstituting and carrying out terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
