Colleagues:
The “New America Foundation” convened a mixed group of scholars, national security experts, and veterans of the Afghanistan conflict to produce this study, “Rethinking the U.S. War in Afghanistan”. The report was written by the “Afghanistan Study Group”, which was modeled after the Bush Administration’s “Iraq Study Group”, but lacks any official cache.
The report strongly recommendations seriously reducing the U.S./NATO military presence in Afghanistan. It deflates the idea that nation-building is a viable objective or a course of action worth pursuing. The Group more narrowly defines what strategic interests we have there (insuring no safe sanctuary for Al Qaeda and maintaining real control over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons), draws on the “Counter-Terrorism” approach advocated by VP Biden and others, recommends more reliance on traditional diplomacy and balance of power tactics, and all but abandons any reliance on a strong central government in Kabul.
The report states that “ America and its allies are mired in a civil war in Afghanistan and are struggling to establish an effective central government in a country that has long been fragmented and decentralized. “ The Group concludes that “Instead of toppling terrorists, America’s Afghan war has become an ambitious and fruitless effort at nation-building.”
In some ways, given that the composition of the group contains no “NeoCons” or strong supporters of the COIN strategy (“COINdinistas” such as the Kagans), the observations are not surprising. However, I was struck by some of the major conclusions:
- Referring to the President’s recent speech on Iraq, the report says his focus instead should have been on Afghanistan — “where the hemorrhage of U.S. interests and resources is only worsening.”
- Despite acceding to the “Pentagon’s surge in troop levels, huge budget requests and civilian nation-builders, as well as the deployment of a superstar general, Obama’s current approach in Afghanistan is failing.”
- The United States has only two vital interests in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region: preventing Afghanistan from being a “safe haven” from which Al Qaeda or other extremists can organize more effective attacks on the U.S. homeland and ensuring that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal does not fall into hostile hands.
- Protecting American interests does not require a U.S. military victory over the Taliban. “A Taliban takeover is unlikely, even if Washington reduces its military commitment. The Taliban is a rural insurgency rooted in Afghanistan’s Pashtu population, and it had succeeded due, in part, to the disenfranchisement of rural Pashtuns”. The Taliban seized power in the 1990s under an unusual set of circumstances that no longer exist and are unlikely to be repeated.
- There is no significant Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan today, and the risk of a new “safe haven” there under more “friendly” Taliban rule is overstated. Should an Al Qaeda cell regroup in Afghanistan, the United States would have residual military capability in the region sufficient to track and destroy.
- The recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths “in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.” (my comment—all nice sounding phrases, but not sure what that means in practice)
- The Group concludes that “this war’s massive management mess is that the price tag to U.S. taxpayers has soared to nearly $100 billion annually. Compare that to the astonishing fact that Afghanistan’s gross national product is only one-seventh of this — $14 billion. Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan — and failing in its efforts — than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program.”
- Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims — assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.
- Prospects for success are dim. “The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice. The Afghanistan conflict has now grown disproportionally large in the global portfolio of U.S. national security concerns, outweighing and tilting attention and resources away from other troubles in the Middle East, from Iran, from North Korea, from the global consequences of an ascending and more powerful China.”
- The Afghanistan Study Group also notes that like Viet-Nam, where Lyndon Johnson ruefully noted the dilemma he faced, “I can’t win….and I can’t get out”, Obama may soon feel that he, too, is mired in the quicksand of Central Asia, seeing no course but to follow through with a strategy that has little prospect for success.
- Again, given the composition of the ASG, the conclusions are not surprising. However, they will add fuel to the growing impatience on the part of the American people for an alternative solution….or a withdrawl.
- The group’s report can be downloaded here and is due to be released at the New America Foundation today.
-Ty
Click here: A New Way Forward | Report of the Afghan study group