The Afghanistan problem gets more difficult
From the beginning eight years ago, the United States has failed to commit the resources and attention needed in Afghanistan. Barack Obama campaigned on correcting that problem and moved last spring to do so as president. Now he is once again being asked by military commanders to boost the number of U.S. troops committed to the effort.
As someone who has long argued for a more concerted effort in Afghanistan, I have to confess to serious new doubts driven largely by the outcome of the recent Afghan elections. Those results revealed an Afghan people increasingly alienated from the government of Hamid Karzai, and a thoroughly corrupt Karzai government shamelessly willing to stuff thousands of ballot boxes in a transparent effort to keep itself in power.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of that problem. In a conventional war in which victory can be won through brute military power, a lack of host-government legitimacy would not necessarily be critical. But the strategy of U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, led by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, acknowledges that this is not a conventional war and that military power cannot win it. It is a political war in which the support and loyalty of the Afghan people will be the deciding factor.
And as McChrystal himself acknowledges in an assessment of the situation, “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government.”
So, in assessing the request for more troops, the most important question President Obama must ask of his commanders and advisers is this: How can the United States and its international allies succeed without a credible, legitimate Afghan government as a partner? How can we rally Afghan support for a government that does not deserve and doesn’t really even try to earn that support?
The counter-insurgency approach drafted by Gen. David Petraeus and now being implemented in Afghanistan suggests that without a host government with some degree of credibility and legitimacy, such a war cannot be won. In the unclassified version of his assessment, McChrystal acknowledges that the Afghan war is a war of ideas and perception, and “The key to changing perceptions lies in changing underlying truths.”
So how do we change the underlying truth that we are asking the Afghan people to support a government that they know and we know is not worthy of that support? How can a counterinsurgency strategy overcome that fundamental problem?
And if it can’t, what can still more U.S. troops really accomplish?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
155 comments Add your comment
Normal
September 21st, 2009
7:54 am
MR. PRESIDENT, BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!
The terrorists hate the Predator. Use them. They are a terror weapon to the terrorists. Give them a dose of their own medicine.
Attila, Alexander The Great, Great Britian and the U.S.S.R could not
win a conventional war there. Why would you think we can?
kitty
September 21st, 2009
8:00 am
In hindsight, we should never have tried to rebuild Afghanistan. We should have gone in and messed up AQ, found OBL, set up bases in Afghanistan and Pakistan to monitor terrorist activity and left. Then used drones and limited strikes to keep the idiots under control. You can’t rebuild a place like Afghanistan. History has shown that again and again. But we were all angry and wanted revenge. Revenge is usually a wasted activity. It was this time as well.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 21st, 2009
8:02 am
McChrystal: More Forces or ‘Mission Failure’
Top U.S. Commander For Afghan War Calls Next 12 Months Decisive
Quagmire.
Turd Ferguson
September 21st, 2009
8:04 am
These people could never be trusted just as those fleas and roaches in Iraq. Kidnap their women, steal their heroin, Napalm every village then cover the rest in Agent Orange.
Mrs. Godzilla
September 21st, 2009
8:06 am
No more troops for Afghanistan.
Finn McCool
September 21st, 2009
8:07 am
Enter your comments hereDon’t even pay them off like Bush did during the “surge” in Iraq.
Just walk away from Afghanistan.
Interesting to note that the Taliban completely shut off the poppy trade but Afghanistan, since we arrived, now leads the world in exports. That’s our drug war industry feeding the fires that keep them employed and awash in cash.
mike
September 21st, 2009
8:11 am
Does Jay have any evidence that the massive invasion and occupation that he seems to be advocating as the correct strategy eight years ago would have made any difference in where we are now?
Like most of the partisans on the left, Jay wants to blame the outcome of the war that he so vigorously advocated (I won’t call him a chickenhawk) on Bush. Of course, he never contemplates that maybe the war was unwinnable in the first place and a strategic mistake.
I also believed the war was the right thing to do eight years ago. I am starting to think that maybe I was wrong. Maybe some day Jay will take the same personal responsibility. In the meantime, he can do what he always does: blame Bush.
Bud Wiser
September 21st, 2009
8:12 am
Obowo has his “more important” war. Let’s see what he does with it, or if he tucks our collective tails and runs.
Closer to home, I wish we could get a rest from the weather.
Normal
September 21st, 2009
8:17 am
I posted this yesterday, but Bud reminded me it is good for today, too…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmeFrNPGXlc
Woodrow
September 21st, 2009
8:20 am
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia!’
Lee
September 21st, 2009
8:23 am
Obama: Afganistan is the war of necessity……so what are you snail and frog eating surrender monkeys gonna do now??
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
8:23 am
“Maybe some day Jay will take the same personal responsibility”
Ok, I’m trying to figure when Jay has ever NOT taken personal responsibilty for his personal opinions.
I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:
September 21st, 2009
8:30 am
But the sun’s recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence.
Yeah, and remember all the giant, abnormal flares they got pictures of during the 1990’s?
“Global warming” my ……..
Normal
September 21st, 2009
8:33 am
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
8:23 am
Doggone, I agree. Let’s debate the message and not try to “kill the messager”
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
8:40 am
“Global warming” my ……..
Mooning the sun again, huh.
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
8:44 am
“Mooning the sun again, huh.”
Not today he hasn’t been!
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
8:46 am
We need to take Afghanistan’s poppy crop and dip Viagra in the end product and carpet bomb their country with it. Let them get addicted to love.
Normal
September 21st, 2009
8:47 am
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
8:46 am
Taxpayer…Radical, but I like the way you think!
Mrs. Godzilla
September 21st, 2009
8:53 am
Taxpayer and Normal
Try saltpeter instead……
You so SPESHIAL!
September 21st, 2009
8:54 am
Dognuts/GA – give it a rest parrot boy.
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
8:56 am
“Dognuts/GA – give it a rest parrot boy.”
Let’s see: you think I’ll be insulted if you misspell my name. Wrong, but it DOES make me wonder about your education level. And as for “boy” – try again, you got that one misspelled too. Are you SURE you got out of grade school?
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
8:57 am
Try saltpeter instead
Add a little fire and brimstone and you can have a real blast.
Gale
September 21st, 2009
8:57 am
Taxpayer @ 8:46, Unfortunately, to the unenlightened, if it’s up, it has to be used. There are many women and girls who may not like being so used.
GayGrayGeek
September 21st, 2009
9:01 am
Doggone & Normal – Remember, to the wingnuts “taking responsibility for one’s words and writings” actually means “drinking the Kool-Aid and parroting Faux Noise”. Because, after all, the wingnuts can’t have any opinions publicized which might conflict with that their Fearless Leaders might utter, right?
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:03 am
It was a fool’s errand from the beginning. But at this point they can’t just leave. Al Qaeda and the Taliban must be exterminated and the Afghans given protection and support. They don’t need a strong central government. The Afghan chieftains can control things once the mischief-makers have been removed.
(None deemed worthy of print.)
Afghanistan/Osama.
Saturday, November 30, 2002 10:13 AM
To: vent@ajc.com
Conquer Afghanistan? You must support Bookman’s empire theory. What
Dubya did was destroy Afghanistan. The country has been divided into
many territories and will be very difficult, if not impossible, to
reunite under a central government.
The bribing of the Afghan warlords probably cost lives, especially
hundreds of innocent civilians who they deliberately targeted for air
strikes.
What happens when the Afghan warlords decide they don’t want to play
ball anymore or someone else is willing to pay them more? Do we fight
or withdraw?
Shouldn’t the Afghan warlords have willingly joined the fight against
the evildoers and Taliban without having to be bribed?
The USA shouldn’t have to hire mercenaries and bribe warlords with
millions of dollars. That’s why we have the strongest, best equipped
and best prepared military in history. And it was handed to Dubya by
the Clinton and previous administrations.
The hiring of mercenaries, bribing of warlords and other CIA meddling
are what got us in this revolting predicament.
Wanted, Dead or Alive! Day 448, and counting. (Now day 2,926.)
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
9:06 am
“Al Qaeda and the Taliban must be exterminated ”
Get real. If you’re waiting for this you’re going to wait a LONG time. The most we can hope for is to keep them disrupted to where they aren’t in a position to take over again. I do agree about the power structure in Afghanistan though.
Gale
September 21st, 2009
9:09 am
TNG, I agree completely. Afghan chieftans have defended their territory for centuries. They are not disposed to a central government. They will be a very long time moving to a western-like culture, if they ever do. They have an evironment that does not lend itself to central government. We need to make technological advances available to them, help them to find markets for products other than opium, and let them alone to find their own way of ruling themselves.
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:10 am
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
8:46 am
We’ve tried that already:
“Take one of these. You’ll love it,” the officer said. Compliments of Uncle Sam.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/26/MN0S14V9PR.DTL#ixzz0RkKaPQps
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/26/MN0S14V9PR.DTL
Normal
September 21st, 2009
9:10 am
G3, I’ve been meaning to say I’m glad you’re back!
the wingnuts can’t have any opinions publicized which might conflict with that their Fearless Leaders might utter, right?
You are correct, but I wish they would turn the volume down a little bit.
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
9:10 am
Gale
September 21st, 2009
8:57 am
Taxpayer @ 8:46, Unfortunately, to the unenlightened, if it’s up, it has to be used. There are many women and girls who may not like being so used.
I have no desire to see the females in the region suffer. In fact, I’m in favor of helping all the females (and helpless four-legged critters too) find temporary shelter outside of the carpet bombed areas until after the terrorists have done themselves to death. I apologize for not providing a more thoughtful solution initially and your and Mrs. G’s replies further illustrate why we need to listen to each other’s inputs to problems. Besides, we can throw out all the Republican ideas after they’re compiled just as easily.
GEORGE AMERICAN
September 21st, 2009
9:12 am
WE NEED A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF WITH A BACKBONE. SOMEONE WITH GUTS WHO KNOWS HOW TO STAND UP TO THE ENEMY – LIKE CHENEY OR RUMMIE!!!
THE YOU-KNOW-WHAT-EATING SURRENDER-MONKEY-IN-CHIEF BACKED DOWN TO THE RUSKIES, NOW HE’LL SURRENDER TO BIN LADEN.
THE DUMOCRATS AND MEDIA ARE KILLING AMERICA AND OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY!!!
OBLARMA IS LIKE EDDIE AMIN AND POL POT MIED TOGETHER WITHOUT THE COURAGE!!!
Gale
September 21st, 2009
9:17 am
Taxpayer, Although the women here usually understand when a comment is just ‘guy-talk’, we feel compelled to speak up so you remember what the comment is really saying. And yes, I’m sure ‘gal-talk’ sometimes crosses the line into poor taste.
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
9:17 am
We have GOT to get better education in GA!
Normal
September 21st, 2009
9:21 am
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:03 am
It was a fool’s errand from the beginning. But at this point they can’t just leave. Al Qaeda and the Taliban must be exterminated and the Afghans given protection and support
While I agree with you in principle, it is too late to do the Afghani’s any good now. If we had stayed in Afghanistan from the beginning, yes we could have won.
The only way we will have any effect now is using terror to fight terror, Make the Taliban look up in the sky with fear every time he walks to the outhouse, or gets in a car…whenever he is out doors.
I still have friends in Spec Ops, USN and a friend from the 6th grade who retired O6, USN. We talk about this alot. The Taliban hate the UAV’s. They are scared to constipation of them. Keep them flying 24/7
and take the shots when we get it. Keep them occupied and their heads down. If they are always ducking and covering, they won’t have time for anything else.
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
9:22 am
We can certainly inform the government that we are leaving and give them a grace period to make preparations. We need to quit trying to impose unworkable ’solutions’ on others. Increasing troops is not a solution to anything other than getting more people killed and spending more money that we don’t have.
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:10 am
I know. I was just putting a new spin on it.
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:22 am
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
9:06 am
Their funding and supplies have to be cut off and lethal force unleashed. Let the chips fall where they may. Rev up the B-52s to bomb the mountain hideaways. Like Albright said, what good is it if you don’t use it. The intelligence has to be flawless, however, to keep collateral damage to an absolute minimum. The Pentagon has weapons we don’t even know about that need to be “tested.”
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:26 am
Normal
September 21st, 2009
9:21 am
I agree about the UAVs, and had suggested that recently. Constipation can be deadly!
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:30 am
“IRS extends amnesty program for tax cheats”
WASHINGTON — Tax dodgers who hid assets overseas will get a few extra weeks to apply for an amnesty program that has been flooded with applications ahead of the Wednesday deadline.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/irs-extends-amnesty-program-142659.html
(You’re safe for a while longer, Reporter.)
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
9:30 am
“Rev up the B-52s to bomb the mountain hideaways.”
“The intelligence has to be flawless, however, to keep collateral damage to an absolute minimum”
These 2 statements are at total odds with each other. There is NO WAY to keep “collateral” damage to a minimum when you are carpet bombing an area from 25,000 feet up. B52’s are not “surgical” strike weapons.
whistling dixie
September 21st, 2009
9:31 am
The question begs to be asked. What in the world are we doing in Afghanistan?
Much like Vietnam this will prove to be a U.S. fiasco.
The Soviet Union spent 10 years in this country, And due to the nature of the war, the conflict in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the Soviets’ Vietnam in relation to the Vietnam War.
Lost lives, huge amounts of money spent, and for what? More useless ribbons to pin on some generals chest!
To paraphrase John Kerry Who will be the last man to die in Afghanistan for a mistake?
Jimbo
September 21st, 2009
9:31 am
Sure, ok, let’s leave Afghanistan. In 2020, when another series of major terrorist attacks comes out of that region we can always just go back in again. Perhaps this time we’ll get distracted and invade Iran.. At least then we’ll have someplace to move material into the Afghanistan without having to rely on local dictatorships.
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
9:32 am
The Pentagon has weapons we don’t even know about that need to be “tested.”
The Pentagon has weapons that should never have been constructed or even thought of. It is sick to even think about tax payers funding people to sit around and dream up new ways to wipe out people. Toxins and nerve agents and mustard gas and… It’s just a slippery slope to hell on earth.
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:34 am
Glenn Beck doesn’t have any confidence in DHS:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1683657/glenn_beck_terrorism/
pat
September 21st, 2009
9:39 am
We have to do what it takes to win now, so we don’t have to come back to a bigger problem later.
We have many options, militarily. The biggest problem is we let politics dictate the war. We need to do what ever it’s going to take to win decisivly as quickly as posible. Failure to do otherwise, will result in another attack on our soil. That is a certainty. The worst thing we could have done, we did, we dragged it out. Let’s end it now, we have the most advanced weapons and the best trained personal, this should not be a problem for us.
It’s time to quit playing politcal games and end it. Wars are ugly, it’s going to get uglier, the loger it lasts the uglier it going to be.
Playing games with these people has led us into this mess, it’s time to quit playing games.
Peace at any price will give us anything but.
Doggone/GA
September 21st, 2009
9:42 am
Pat…ok, now HOW do you suggest we go about “doing what it takes” to win…when we don’t even know for sure who – in that population – is the enemy and who is not? Or should we just carpet bomb that whole damn country and “let God sort them out”?
jconservative
September 21st, 2009
9:45 am
Afghanistan.
“The Washington Post has published the confidential report, which Obama and his national security advisers have been reviewing. In the review, McChrystal calls for more troops in Afghanistan, and warns that without the level of manpower needed, the U.S. military effort there will end in defeat. Though McChrystal has not yet requested a specific number of additional troops, Pentagon and military officials say he is expected to propose various options, from an increase of ten thousand to 45,000, according to the New York Times.” From cfr.org
Question: Is Afghanistan now at a stage where a military decision is required or a civilian/foreign policy decision? I would argue that it is time for a review of the foreign policy decisions previously made.
Military decisions need to be made after the foreign policy decisions are made.
That would require laying out for the American people a plain English explanation of what the goals are for US presence, how long it will take, how much it will cost, what manpower (military & civilian) and clearly define the “exit strategy”. In short, the US voters need to know who, what, when, where, how much & how long.
This morning we do not know the answers to any of those questions.
Kayaker 71
September 21st, 2009
9:49 am
Since America starting fighting “wars” of containment, we have faced the inevitable…. loss after loss because of an international border. Carrying the Vietnam war into Cambodia and Laos was an effort at correcting this but met with such opposition, that it had to be done in a clandestine manner. When the enemy runs across a border, like the Taliban are doing in Pakistan, we are defeated before we start. Giving up American lives in the name of containment is a fool’s errand brought about by insecure leaders without the balls to finish what they started.
Normal
September 21st, 2009
9:50 am
Glenn Beck? No comment…
Donovan
September 21st, 2009
9:50 am
Well it looks like Bookman and his communist side-kick, Tucker, spent the weekend over Obama beers dicussing the needs of the DNC’s slant on the Afghan war. Each has a similar column that paints them as arm chair generals strategizing the needs and requirements in winning the Democrat’s war. Bookman goes one step further in his assessment with the Harry Reid syndrome. He is setting us all up with the probable, “the war is lost” thing again. Don’t all of you find it amusing when Democrats talk about military matters? Here’s a tip for you, Jay…stay out of the way. Your liberal education disqualifies you from making such evaluations.
TnGelding
September 21st, 2009
9:52 am
Taxpayer
September 21st, 2009
9:32 am
Well, they want to annihilate us. I’ve said all along we need to sit down and work out an agreement that we can live with. It would probably mean we’d have to withdraw from the entire region and let them govern themselves.
Exerted from a letter-to-the-editor in 2004:
To link the invasion of Iraq with the “war on terror” and say we’re fighting them there instead of here is disingenuous at best; deceptive at worst. Most of the “insurgents” are Iraqis and their foreign accomplices just walked across the border left unprotected by poor post-war planning. They had no desire and no means to strike on our soil before our invasion. Whereas there were only a few thousand hard-core terrorists on 9/11 (I had guesstimated 20,000 at the time but later learned it was more like 7,000) there are at least 10 times that many now.
They don’t hate us because of our freedom and wealth. They hate us because of what they perceive as our decadence, our meddling in their affairs and our support of Israel. Ironically, we’ve spent more on this war than we have on Israel since its ill-advised creation.
We can’t win a war on terror. The best we can hope for is stalemate; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. As someone said, over time we’ll all be blind and toothless. We need to end the war and start a human transformation that values life and respects other cultures.
Our self-proclaimed war president has said you can’t negotiate with terrorists, continuing the long held official position of our government. But why not? Is their track record on keeping agreements any worse than ours? The failure to negotiate the release of hostages (some might call prisoners) is a blatant disrespect for human life. Are you any more dead as the result of a beheading, a form of capital punishment in Arab states, than from an errant “smart” bomb or one accurately targeted on bad intelligence?