Category: Afghanistan

PBS Interview: Secretary Gates on Policy

Interview With Defense Secretary Gates, (PBS)…Charlie Rose, Dec 17, 2008.

In a Wednesday night interview, Defense Secretary Gates discusses several topics, including how national security policy may change in the Obama administration, and events in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES: My biggest concern in Afghanistan is the history of foreign armies in Afghanistan going back to Alexander the Great. As long as the Afghan people see us as their friend and ally, as long as they see us as in this fight for them, as well as for ourselves, then I think we’ll be okay. But if we get too many forces in there, if they come to see us as in it for only ourselves and not as their ally and they turn against us, then I think we cannot be successful.

He has argued for a U.S. military that better integrates diplomacy and soft power with hard power. Under his watch, Iraq has become a more stable place, a new U.S.-Iraq security agreement requires U.S. combat troops to withdraw by the end of 2011, but the war in Afghanistan has intensified. 

Afghanistan: NATO Challenges

U.S. To Supply Bulk Of Additional NATO Afghan Troops, (Bloomberg.com)…James G. Neuger, Bloomberg News, Dec 18, 2008.

The U.S. will supply the bulk of additional NATO troops for the war in Afghanistan, with only smaller-scale reinforcements coming from European allies, the alliance’s supreme military commander said.

American concerns that some European allies aren’t pulling their weight erupted last year when Defense Secretary Robert Gates — set to keep his job in Obama’s Cabinet — warned that NATO risked devolving into a “two-tiered alliance.”

American concerns that some European allies aren’t pulling their weight erupted last year when Defense Secretary Robert Gates — set to keep his job in Obama’s Cabinet — warned that NATO risked devolving into a “two-tiered alliance.”

Afghanistan: "Start winning the war. "

The Commander,  NBC Nightly News, 7:00 PM, Jim Maceda, Dec 17, 2008.

BRIAN WILLIAMS: On our last trip to Afghanistan, we heard it often from the soldiers on the ground. They didn’t like what it was called, the “Other War,” or even worse the “Forgotten War.” They’re in a tough fight there. President Obama will inherit it. He has vowed to pump more soldiers in. He’ll have help in improving the situation there from the point man on the ground in that war, Gen. John Nicholson, a man with one of the toughest jobs in the U.S. military.

Our own Jim Maceda spent some time with Nicholson in Kandahar Province.

JIM MACEDA: He rolls through town like a new sheriff getting used to the neighborhood, but this is the very heart of Taliban country.

REPORTER: So have you had suicide bomber attacks recently in Kandahar City?

MACEDA: Gen. John Nicholson is the first and only U.S. general in Southern Afghanistan and his orders are as clear as they are daunting: start winning the war.

BRIG. GEN. JOHN NICHOLSON [U.S. Army]: We are now going to be able to secure the vast majority of the population in the south and deliver the basic services through the government that they were unable to do this point.

MACEDA: He’s already expanding bases with a 15,000-20,000 additional U.S. troops expected in the coming year, effectively doubling NATO’s punch in the crucial south.

NICHOLSON: We will see more U.S. forces and more U.S. investment in Southern Afghanistan, which will be a game changer.

This will be the first of many visits here –

MACEDA: As much nation-builder as warrior, Nicholson’s day is a whirlwind of meetings with USAID officials, visiting lawmakers, and Afghan leaders. The boss still surprises his longtime military assistant.

MAJ. FRED TANNER [U.S. Army]: His ability – whoever he’s engaging with to be able to think at their level, you know, whether that be a congressman or be a company commander.

MACEDA: But the 51-year-old West Point grad with two Masters Degrees knows how tough victory will be. In 2006, we embedded with then Col. Nicholson and his brigade in Eastern Afghanistan coming under ambush, trying to flush out the Taliban from the Pakistan border. The Taliban was relentless. By the end of that tour, his unit had lost 45 men and 350 wounded – the highest U.S. toll in the war.

NICHOLSON: For me, there’s a moral obligation to my soldiers who’ve sacrificed so much here to come back and deliver on what they started.

MACEDA: And there’s something else.

NICHOLSON: I believe I was spared on 9/11 to do my duty here in Afghanistan.

MACEDA: The plane that struck the Pentagon on 9/11 destroyed his office, killing his closest colleagues. Nicholson should have been there, but instead was moving into a house that day with his family.

NICHOLSON: I’m grateful to have that purpose.

MACEDA: But with Taliban attacks and government corruption on the rise, Nicholson says he’s no Mr. Fixit.

NICHOLSON: You know, Mr. Fixit would imply that I had all the answers, but I certainly don’t.

MACEDA: What he does have is a mission to turn around a war he can’t walk away from.

Jim Maceda, NBC News, Kandahar.

Afghanistan: People want a normal life

What Afghans Want, (Washington Post)…David Ignatius

It’s easy to get depressed reading the news out of Afghanistan. The insurgents are getting stronger, the United States is sending another 20,000 troops there — and yet even Defense Secretary Bob Gates admits that American soldiers aren’t a long-term solution. So what to do?

In sorting out these policy dilemmas, it helps to talk to Afghans such as Saad and Jahid Mohseni, who are struggling with these problems every day.

The Mohsenis’ story reminds me that Afghans are like anyone else. They want a normal life, with a decent income, a safe place to raise their kids and good shows to watch on TV. Creating a secure environment may require 20,000 more U.S. troops, but the real breakthrough would be an Afghan government that protects its people rather than allowing criminal gangs to terrorize them.

Afghanistan: Regional Problem

The Aimless War: Why Are We In Afghanistan?, (Time)…Joe Klein, Dec 11, 2008

…The war in Afghanistan — the war that President-elect Barack Obama pledged to fight and win — has become an aimless absurdity. It began with a specific target. Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda lived, harbored by the Islamic extremist Taliban government. But the enemy escaped into Pakistan, and for the past seven years, Afghanistan has been a slow bleed against an array of mostly indigenous narco-jihadi-tribal guerrilla forces that we continue to call the “Taliban.”

In his initial statements, Obama has seemed more sophisticated about Afghanistan than Bush. In an interview with me in late October, Obama said Afghanistan should be seen as part of a regional problem, and he suggested that he might dispatch a special envoy, perhaps Bill Clinton, to work on the Indo-Afghan-Pakistani dilemma. Clinton seems a less likely prospect since his wife was named Secretary of State. The current speculation is that Richard Holbrooke may be selected for the job, which would be a very good idea.

Afghanistan: Adaptibility

One Surge Does Not Fit All, (New York Times)…Donald H. Rumsfeld

THE surge in Iraq has been one of the most impressive military accomplishments in recent years. It has been so successful that the emerging consensus is that what may now be needed in Afghanistan is a similar surge of American forces.

In a few weeks, the new commander in chief, Barack Obama, will assume the responsibility of leading a nation at a time of war. Time and flexibility are the two constants of military success. In a struggle with an adaptable, thinking enemy, there is no single template for success. More is not always better. One size does not fit all.

The singular trait of the American way of war is the remarkable ability of our military to advance, absorb setbacks, adapt and ultimately triumph based upon the unique circumstances of a given campaign. Thus it has been throughout our history. And thus it will be in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we have the patience and wisdom to learn from our successes, and if our leaders have the wherewithal to persevere even when it is not popular to do so.

Donald H. Rumsfeld was the secretary of defense from 2001 to 2006.

Afghanistan War: Tougher than Iraq

Cartwright: Afghanistan War Tougher Than Iraq
(ArmyTimes.com)…Rick Maze
The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs warned Monday that U.S. troops and their families should not expect to relax if operations in Iraq wrap up soon. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, speaking Monday in Arlington, Va., before a symposium sponsored by the Military Officers Association of America, predicted the situation in Afghanistan won’t be resolved as easily or quickly as was the case with creating a semblance of political stability in Iraq.

Taliban Says No To Karzai On Offer Of Peace Talks
(Washington Post)…Associated Press
Taliban insurgents rejected an offer of peace talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, reiterating Monday their position that there would be no negotiations until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Taliban Threatens Attacks In Paris
(Washington Times)…Unattributed
The Taliban threatened to launch attacks in Paris unless France withdraws from Afghanistan, in a video aired by Al Arabiya television on Monday.

Afghanistan Strategy: Larger Security Force

How To Win In Afghanistan,  (Wall Street Journal)…Michael O’Hanlon, Nov 14, 2008.

…So why build a large Afghan security force? The answer is simple: because the alternatives are worse. One possibility is to increase the number of NATO forces deployed in Afghanistan, pushing the combined cost of the operation well above the current $4 billion a month. The other possibility is most likely to lose the war.

The United States has been spending nearly $3 billion a year to fund the Afghanistan security forces of late. This is a great deal of money but far less than our own military costs in that country. We should be willing to double that $3 billion a year if need be. The added expenses need not stay high indefinitely. Once Afghanistan’s security forces have their needed equipment, and provided President Obama can cajole and pressure other major countries to foot their share of the bill, American security aid requirements should drop back to current levels.

Writing in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, two notable South Asia scholars asked whether the American political system was reliable enough to commit such funds to an enlarged Afghan security force over an extended period. The answer is yes. We have proven as much over the years in funding Korea and Taiwan, Greece and Turkey, and for the last three decades Egypt and Israel, when our core security interests dictated it. Certainly Afghanistan, where al Qaeda once had its main home — and where over 20 American GIs as well as another 10 foreign troops a month have been losing their lives, carrying out a mission that Afghans themselves are not yet ready to lead — is worth a comparable financial investment.

Afghanistan: 3 Key Lessons from Iraq

Lessons Of Iraq, (International Herald Tribune)…Christopher M. Schnaubelt, Nov 1, 2008.

There are three key lessons from in Iraq that NATO should consider for Afghanistan, even if there is no substantial increase in troops.

First, there must be a broad and candid analysis of the situation.

Second, probably the most important change in Iraq was shifting the military focus to protecting the population – a task that should be the cornerstone of any counterinsurgency operation.

Finally, the change in strategy in Iraq included a “civilian surge” that doubled the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq. The increased capability helped to promote national reconciliation efforts and to improve the legitimacy of Iraq’s government by facilitating connections between the central government and provincial and local leaders.

Christopher M. Schnaubelt holds the Transformation Chair at the NATO Defense College in Rome.