WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese



    South Asia
     Oct 28, 2009
Kerry argues for counter-insurgency lite
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - Amid growing speculation and partisan bickering over what United States President Barack Obama will do about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, an influential Democratic senator on Monday warned against deploying tens of thousands more US troops there.

Just back from a diplomatic trip in Kabul, John Kerry criticized a military proposal to send about 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan as part of a major counter-insurgency (COIN) campaign to defeat the Taliban as "go[ing] too far, too fast".

"We have already begun implementing a counter-insurgency strategy - but I believe that right now it needs to be as narrowly focused as possible," he told the Council on Foreign Relations in

  

Washington. "We must be very wary of over-extension. And I am particularly concerned about the potential for us to be viewed as foreign occupiers."

Afghanistan's government, he went on, should - with US help - make major advances in building up its own military and security forces and in providing better governance to its people before Washington commits substantially greater numbers of troops to the fight.

"Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the president should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative," he said.

At the same time, he rejected what he called a "narrow counter-terrorism [CT] mission" - initially favored by Vice President Joseph Biden, according to published reports - that would permit the administration to draw down the roughly 68,000 US troops who are currently deployed to Afghanistan and rely on a strategy of Predator drone and special forces strikes against leaders of al-Qaeda and allied groups.

"We all see the appeal of a limited counter-terrorism mission - and no doubt it is part of the end game. But I don't think we're there yet," he said. "A narrow mission that cedes half the country to the Taliban could lead to civil war and put Pakistan at risk."

Moreover, he added, "we need boots on the ground" to obtain the intelligence needed to track down terrorist targets.

Kerry's speech comes at a critical moment in the ongoing public and internal administration debate over US strategy in Afghanistan, a debate that is certain to become more intense after Monday's crashes in two separate incidents of three US helicopters.

A total of 14 troops and three anti-drug agents were killed in what was the single-deadliest day for US forces in Afghanistan in more than four years. A military helicopter crashed on Monday on its return from a firefight with suspected Taliban drug traffickers in western Afghanistan, killing 10 Americans including three Drug Enforcement Agency agents. Four more troops were killed when two helicopters collided over southern Afghanistan.

Kerry made an extended trip to Kabul where he reportedly played a major role in persuading President Hamid Karzai to accept a run-off election next month against his main challenger, a former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah.

That success, which was widely noted in the mainstream media, will likely give him additional influence both among his fellow Democrats in the US Congress, who appear split on Afghanistan, and within the Obama White House with which he has consulted closely over the past 10 months.

Obama has been deliberating for more than a month on a bleak analysis of the situation in Afghanistan submitted in August by his top military commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.

The review argued that only a large-scale COIN campaign designed to provide security in key population centers and accelerate the training of Afghan forces can reverse the momentum that has been running in the Taliban's favor for the past several years.

While McChrystal's report, which was leaked to the Washington Post in September, did not state explicitly how many US troops would be needed to accomplish the mission, insiders suggested that the general and his immediate superior, the chief of the Central Command, General David Petraeus, were hoping for a total of at least 100,000.

Since the leak, most Republican leaders have called on Obama, who has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan with his top national security advisers over the past several weeks, to urgently adopt McChrystal's proposed strategy and any number of troops that he requests.

Last week, former vice president Dick Cheney accused Obama of "dithering while America's armed forces are in danger", a charge that has since been taken up with enthusiasm by right-wing and neo-conservative hawks in congress and the media.

In his remarks on Monday, Kerry took on Cheney directly, noting that it was the former vice president "who in 2002 told America that the Taliban regime is out of business, permanently".

"Make no mistake," he went on, "because of the gross mishandling of this war by past civilian leadership, there are no great options for its handling today."

Kerry praised McChrystal, noting that "he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counter-insurgency in a limited geographic area", specifically in the Pashtun regions of eastern and southern Afghanistan where the Taliban are strongest.

"But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast," he said, adding, "We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity - the other two legs of counter-insurgency."

"[D]ecisions about additional troops," he said, should be based on an assessment of three conditions.

"First, are there enough reliable Afghan forces to partner with American troops - and eventually to take over responsibility for security?" he asked, stressing the importance of "on-the-job training ... as soon as possible".

"The second question is, are there local leaders we can partner with? We have to be able to identify and cooperate with tribal, district and provincial leaders who command the authority to help deliver services and restore Afghans' faith in their own government," he said.

"Third, is the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population?" he asked, noting, "Progress on this front is expected in the coming months with a significant influx of US civilians and efforts to work with the Afghan government to implement reforms."

"[A]bsent an urgent strategic imperative," he said, "we need a valid assessment by the president and other appropriate civilian authorities - not just the military - that those three conditions will be met before we consider sending more soldiers and marines to clear new areas."

Jim Lobe's blog on US foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

(Inter Press Service)


NATO plays a waiting game
(Oct 27, '09)

Failed war president or prince of peace?
(Oct 27, '09)


1. US threats prompted Iran nuclear facility


2. Baghdad blasts echo far and wide

3. China's culture offensive hits a wall

4. Failed war president or prince of peace?

5. India's nuclear drive sparks safety fears

6. Inflation fears threaten US creditworthiness

7. Mortgage madness

8. NATO plays a waiting game

9. Insurers denied run of property

10. The truth about banks and dogs

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Oct 26, 2009)

 
 



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
Copyright 1999 - 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110