The Afghanistan Fiasco Calls for a New Strategy

By Brigitte L. Nacos

During this long hot summer at home, the war in Afghanistan became more costly in terms of American lives and funds without any positive signs of progress. Ironically, as much as the conservative cabal fights the administration on literally all domestic policies, it is an enthusiastic cheerleader of the president’s troop surge and his counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. In spite of this, the majority of Democrats in Congress and the majority of Americans are no longer supporting the Afghanistan War. Yet, President Obama sticks to a strategy that has not worked so far and has little or no chance to work in the future. In another sign that things are not going as planned, General David Petraeus signaled this week that the president’s promise to start the withdrawal of troops in July 2011 is not written in stone.

Although the U.S. pours month after month billions of dollars into the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the coffins of the corrupt Karzai government, the training and equipment of police and army forces that cannot be trusted, and the rebuilding or building of infrastructure and civil society around the country, Taliban and Al Qaeda have gained ground and attacked ISAF bases and personnel more frequently.

It did not take the military WikiLeaks documents to reveal that the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan and Pakistan was a lost cause during the Bush administration. In spite of the troop surge things have not turned around during the Obama presidency.  

Today’s editorial in the New York Times offers a common sense analysis of the situation, asks the right questions. But as much as “Americans need regular, straight talk from President Obama about what is happening in Afghanistan, for good and ill, and the plan going forward,” as the editorial concluded, most needed is a new strategy that returns to the mission’s goal: fight Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist and insurgents and thereby weaken or eliminate them as credible threats.

Forget about winning the hearts and minds of Afghans and building a stable democracy there. That was and is a pipe dream of those neo-conservatives that pushed for the Iraq War at the expense of finishing the mission in Afghanistan in the first place.

Today’s editorial in the Times notes that “This country would also do enormous damage to its moral and strategic standing if it now simply abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban’s brutalities.” But unless the vast majority of Afghans stop to cooperate with the Taliban for whatever the reasons, nobody should expect for Americans to die and pay for  a mission impossible?

I am not advocating a sudden, complete withdrawal of forces but a complete change in strategy. Obviously, the counterinsurgency approach that General Stanley McChrystal embraced first and General Petraeus pursues now has not worked as sold to the president.