Blogs and Stories
Obama's Afghanistan Surprise
David Guttenfelder/AP
Many who voted for him have cheered Obama's plan to withdraw from Iraq, but they may be dismayed to learn just how long and deep a commitment he's considering for Afghanistan.
The recent US missile attacks on Taliban compounds in North and South Waziristan, which killed some 11 foreign fighters and at least 13 Pakistani villagers, are the latest in a series of similar operations since last summer that have laid bare the incoherence of current US military strategy in Afghanistan.
There is little evidence, former US military officers say, that the cross-border operations into Pakistan, like the US helicopter raid into Syria on October 26, were part of any cohesive US strategic mission. Indeed, the mounting collateral damage in civilian lives and angry regional governments is viewed by these former officers as contrary to the military and diplomatic interests of the United States—and can only complicate the tasks ahead in the region for Barack Obama.
“Until we have a defined strategic end state, it’s very hard to come up with the intermediate objectives,” said Nathaniel Fick, a former Marine captain and fellow at Washington’s Center for a New American Security. “What are we trying to achieve in Afghanistan?”
The danger is that Petraeus’s full-blown, can-do, war-fighting doctrine will so dazzle the usually cautious but change-minded new president that Afghanistan policy could well turn into a “Yes, we can!” trap.
On January 20, President-elect Obama, who has long identified Afghanistan, not Iraq, as the real front in the US war on terrorism, will inherit a deteriorating military situation and daunting obstacles in his efforts to transfer US military resources to Afghanistan. Obama already has helped shape a consensus that the strategic objective of the 60,000-strong American-led coalition in Afghanistan should be to take the battle to resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists, and to deny them bases and training camps in the remote border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But there is little agreement within the national security community about how expansive such a military campaign should be, how closely it should be allied to the political fortunes of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and whether Pakistan’s army can be trusted to clean out terrorist camps in the remote border tribal agencies.
The president-elect has agreed to the requests of US commanders in Afghanistan to increase US forces by two or three combat brigades—or 10,000 to 15,000 troops, in addition to another brigade already approved by President Bush. Beyond that, the debate about the proper US strategic mission for a renewed Afghanistan war is all over the map, presenting a broad array of options for President Obama.
Rory Stewart, the author of the best seller The Places In Between about Afghanistan and soon-to-be director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at Harvard’s Kennedy School, rejects both the troop increases and the idea that the success of counterinsurgency tactics in Iraq can be duplicated in Afghanistan. Stewart, a former British infantry officer, would limit US involvement to carefully targeted economic development aid, and dismisses a counterinsurgency strategy as unrealistic and overly ambitious. He recommends that the US pursue a containment strategy and a narrowly counterterrorist military campaign.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Obama’s All Action, No Strategy in Afghanistan
Russ Hoyle is the author of Going to War (Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2008), a detailed account of the 18-month run-up to the Iraq war. He is a former senior editor at the New York Daily News, Time, and the New Republic. Hoyle is at work on a new book about counterinsurgency and the U.S. military.
Iraq Is Deadly Again
Russ Hoyle is the author of Going to War (Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2008), a detailed account of the 18-month run-up to the Iraq war. He is a former senior editor at the New York Daily News, Time, and the New Republic. Hoyle is at work on a new book about counterinsurgency and the U.S. military.
The Turf War Brewing Inside the White House
Russ Hoyle is the author of Going to War (Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin's Press, 2008), a detailed account of the 18-month run-up to the Iraq war. He is a former senior editor at the New York Daily News, Time, and the New Republic. Hoyle is at work on a new book about counterinsurgency and the U.S. military.
This is not a surprise. Mr.Obama said throughout his campaign that he would go after the terrorists where they live, train, and develop. Instead of invading a sovereign country with no pevious havens for known terrorist activities.(or WMDs)
Terrorist threats come in all shapes and sizes. One of history's most notorious was Saddam.
Obama is learning what many of us knew all along. There is a very real war going on. Opposition is a position, not a strategy.
It bothers how easily "Kill Bin-Laden" rolls off Obama's tongue . Obama has probably never held a gun let alone shot one. The IRAQISTAN fiasco that was created and "ran" by a bunch of Draft Dodging Deferment Junkies cries out for a Constitutional Amendment banning war declarations by the uninitiated. Afghanistan is populated by some of the toughest people on earth (ask the Russians). They have never been conquered by outside force and I think they never will be. Full employment stalls "terrorists" faster than any army or political ideology ever will.
Editors, not authors write the titles. The core argument is this:
"The danger is that Petraeus's full-blown, can-do, war-fighting doctrine will so dazzle the usually cautious but change-minded new president that Afghanistan policy could well turn into a "Yes, we can!" trap."
That Obama sees Afghanistan as the locus of the fight against the 9/11 attackers, and will take the fight to them does not imply any particular war-fighting strategy, nor any particular mix of development/military measures.
The real surprise will be if we don't follow the Brits and the Russians into an Afghan quagmire.
- George Conk, New York City
Full employment at what? These guys shoot at each other as a hobby, so they're even happier if they can make a career of it.
My experience in the region suggests that we must ally ourselves with a coalition of tribes, but we must also expect the coalition to be fluid. The tactics and strategies that work in Iraq don't fit the situation in Afghanistan at all. It's a different country with a different culture. (Duh1) I hope that Obama avoids the Bush errors, particularly those based on ignorance of the region and false assumptions about the culture.
As to his taking on Afghanistan in a big way--this should surprise no one, at least no one who was paying attention to what he says. It was in his famous speech: "I don't oppose all wars. I oppose dumb wars." Or words to that effect.
I think we all want the troops home from Iraq ASAP...that was a war we should never have even had!!!!
However, Afghanistan is another story, that has been going on a while and that is where we should have been from day one instead of wasting....life, time and resources over in Iraq.
I am sure that is not going to be an easy war, it hard to try and find someone whose terrain you really know nothing about...and it seems like the troops are sitting ducks in many cases.
So I'm sure we will all have to be patient with that one I'm afraid, but that area is where we should be looking for Bin Laden etc.
How are the strikes into Pakistan not part of a coherent plan/strategy Mr. Hoyle? All the intelligence chatter that has been reported in recent years suggest Osama Bin Laden is in the tribal/lawless/mountainous region of northern Pakistan. We have confirmed kills of major players in the Taliban/Al-Qaeda and still have a comparatively low incidence of civilian loss of life. I fully support Obama's plans for Afghanistan (as they have been expressed/reported so far), and hope the cross-border strikes continue as needed and as long as they are successful. It doesn't seem to me that Pakistan has acted like our ally in the mission to stabilize the region and find bin Laden and his people.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.