During the presidential campaign Barak Obama said he would deploy more troops to win the war in Afghanistan, while decreasing troop levels in Iraq. Following the 911 jihad attacks, I supported the original decision to go to war in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban. We succeeded in driving the Taliban out of power and helped to set up a democratic form of government. Now, 8 years after 911, how much longer do we continue this fight and what should our goals be in that operation?
Last week, President Obama decided to increase US Troops strength in Afghanistan by 17,000.
Our goals should be defensive--basically a holding action, to prevent the Taliban from taking control again. Afghanistan and North Pakistan are huge areas and I can’t see the US continually carrying out ground operations accross this vast countryside. Let’s redefine "winning" in Afganistan to a more modest "not allowing the Taliban to take over again." If the Afghan Gov’t wants to "win" by "liberating" the entire country, then let them (I hope they succeed) but our war aims should be limited.
Ralph Peters, in a column in USA Today, is saying the same thing. I quote his four points (from best to worst) for US Policy in Afghanistan. Peters, like me, has no ideological objection to using US military overseas, so Peters' re-thinking his position on Afghanistan is quite an interesting development.
here
• Best. Instead of increasing the U.S. military "footprint," reduce our forces and those of NATO by two-thirds, maintaining a "mother ship" at Bagram Air Base and a few satellite bases from which special operations troops, aircraft and drones, and lean conventional forces would strike terrorists and support Afghan factions with whom we share common enemies. All resupply for our military could be done by air, if necessary.
Stop pretending Afghanistan's a real state. Freeze development efforts. Ignore the opium. Kill the fanatics
• Good. Leave entirely. Strike terrorist targets from over the horizon and launch punitive raids when necessary. Instead of facing another Vietnam ourselves, let Afghanistan become a Vietnam for Iran and Pakistan. Rebuild our military at home, renewing our strategic capabilities.
• Poor. Continue to muddle through as is, accepting that achieving any meaningful change in Afghanistan is a generational commitment. Surge troops for specific missions, but not permanently.
• Worst. Augment our forces endlessly and increase aid in the absence of a strategy. Lie to ourselves that good things might just happen. Let U.S. troops and Afghans continue to die for empty rhetoric, while Pakistan decays into a vast terrorist refuge.
Broadly speaking, as far as US military aims go re the war with Radical Islam, we should rely more on special forces and air and naval attacks and try to avoid large, land-based operations. There are so many potential fronts on the war against radical islam--Afghanistan, North Pakistan, Yemen, the Sudan, and Iran. Prudence dictates we choose our fights carefully.
I am leaning more toward a policy of containment, similar to the cold war against the former Soviet Union.
Here is the policy direction I would like to see:
- Use US troops overseas sparingly.
- If we have to use the US military, focus on air and sea power and special-ops where necessary
- When discussing the war with Radical Islam, emphasize containment (as opposed to changing their hearts and minds)
- Make US immigration policy a part of the package--by denying radical islamists entry to the US. and the west.