A Call to End the War in Afghanistan

Two U.S. Congressman have wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post calling for the departure of troops in Afghanistan.  They say there is no strategy that is working, our goals are undefined (or already met), we are supporting a corrupt government, and the war is costing too much in terms of human and economic expenditure.  Read "The solution in Afghanistan: Get out", The Washington Post, February 18, 2011.

Improving Afghan War Strategy - by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institute - Feb 2011 (Report)

The Brookings Institute has published a report entitled "Improving Afghan War Strategy" authored by Michael E. O'Hanlon.  It is dated February 2011 and the report is a policy brief on Afghanistan.  The report

" . . . addresses the first challenge, improving the U.S./NATO counterinsurgency campaign.  The basic logic of the current strategy is accepted, but several new initiatives or ideas are explored to make it more promising and more effective".

Three main ideas are developed:
- promoting Afghan political organizations around ideas and platforms not ethnic groups or individuals
- tackling the problem of corruption from an international perspective instead of U.S. - Afghan view
- Offer a civilian nuclear deal to Pakistan in exchange for shutting down the Taliban sanctuaries

Read the report at the link below:

http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/02_afghanistan_ohanlon.aspx

COIN Strategy Not Working in Afghanistan

According to many critics (newspaper columnists, retired officers, and think tank writers) our current counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is simply not working.  This is a result of many reasons - depending on who is talking about it (or writing about it) at the time.  One correspondent has provided us with a lengthy online article (via AOL Original News) in "Counterinsurgency Strategy Not Working in Afghanistan, Critics Say", Politics Daily, January 12, 2011.

Glowing Statements about Progress of ANP from Kabul Do Not Reflect Reality in the Field

A columnist reporting from Afghanistan files a pessimistic report of the progress of the war.  He states that while optimistic reports emanate from ISAF headquarters in Kabul - closer to the fight the view is much different.  His observations of the performance of the Afghan National Police (ANP) provides an example of the challenges ahead.  See "Ugly Victory in Afghanistan", Buffalo News.com, January 16, 2011.

Critic Says "Hearts and Minds Campaign" Not Working

A critic of the war in Afghanistan, Bing West, says that the U.S. military should get back to fighting the enemy and spending less time on nation building and winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan populace.  Read more in "Hearts and Minds Won't Get Us Out of Afghanistan", Newsweek, January 4, 2011.

Defining Success in Afghanistan - American Enterprise Institute (Kagan)

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Institute for the Study of War has published a paper (almost 40 pages) on how to define success in Afghanistan. The paper, wrote by Frederick and Kimberly Kagan (with assistance from other contributors such as Carl Forsberg), provides a perspective on the conflict not always depicted in the mainstream media and helps to define what our goals and objectives in the Afghan War are (or should be).  It starts with a situation update, states the present strategy is working and that we should continue it.  There are several maps to aid the reader.  An excerpt from the paper introduction is below: 

"Success in Afghanistan is the establishment of a political order, security situation, and indigenous security force that is stable, viable, enduring, and able--with greatly reduced international support--to prevent Afghanistan from being a safe haven for international terrorists. The current American and Coalition strategy is making progress and should be continued. Since President Obama, NATO allies, and the Afghans have agreed that troops will be present in Afghanistan through 2014, the policy does not require substantial modifications at this point. This paper is thus primarily a report on the current situation in Afghanistan and a consideration of some of the prospects and challenges ahead. Our principal recommendation is that the U.S. and its allies should continue to resource and sustain the strategy now being executed, which is the only approach that can secure their vital national security interests in Afghanistan."

You can read more about the paper or navigate to a link to read or download the paper (Adobe Acrobat PDF, 40 pages, 13 MBs) at the AEI website by following the link below.  It is a big file - probably because of the maps.

http://www.aei.org/paper/100184

Five Ways to Win Afghan War by Andrew Exum - Foreign Policy Magazine

Andrew Exum, a former infantry officer, has penned an article that provides five ways to help win the war in Afghanistan.  The steps are 1) cut funding for the war as the aid is being misspent and much of the money is put into the pockets of corrupt Afghan officials 2) compromise on combat enablers - helicopters may be more important than an infantry battalion 3) find a way to replace Ambassador Holbrooke 4) leverage the corrupt Afghan officials through family members with U.S. passports 5) cut back troops but commit to the long fight.  Read his article in "5 Ways to Win the War in Afghanistan", Foreign Policy Magazine, December 15, 2010.

International Council on Security and Development (ICSD) Comments on White House Afghan Report

The President and founder of the International Council on Security and Development (ICSD), Norrine Macdonald, has commented on the latest White House report on Afghanistan.  Some points raised include a surprising increase in support for women's rights, a lack of understanding by the Afghans of why we are occupying their country, the inability of the Afghan government to connect with the population in the rural areas, and the questionable loyalty of the Afghan security forces - specifically the Afghan National Police (ANP).  Read her article in "The good, the bad, and the ugly in Afghanistan, The AfPak Channel, Foreign Policy, December 16, 2010.

Petraeus Comments on Strategy Aspects of Afghan War

General Petraeus has commented recently on the strategy for the Afghan war.  See "Petraeus: All Strategy Aspects Contribute to Progress", U.S. Department of Defense, December 17, 2010.

Dec 2010 War Review - Fragile Progress (Wall Street Journal)

According to the White House review of the Afghan War - the president thinks that the U.S. is on track in Afghanistan but that the gains are fragile.  Read some commentary on this report in "Obama Says Afghan Goals are on Track", by Julian Barnes, The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2010. 

Afghan War: Strategic Patience or Strategic Denial

A columnist writes an opinion on the Afghan war.  He cites White House and military quotes about "strategic patience" yet wonders if these same spokespersons are in denial.  Read more in "The darkness of our wars", by James Carroll, The Boston Globe, December 20, 2010.

Gates Dicusses Afghan Plan

In a recent news article Secretary of Defense Gates discusses the progress being made in Afghanistan and the plan that brings us to 2014.  See "Clear, Hold, Handoff Remains Afghan Plan", DoD Buzz, December 16, 2010.

A Balanced Approach in Strategy Needed in Afghanistan

Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan have penned an article calling for a balanced approach to our strategy in Afghanistan.  The Kagan's are independent military analysts who have conducted research for commanders in Afghanistan and are associated with the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War.  Read their article in "Our best chance in Afghanistan", The Washington Post, December 19, 2010.

Limited Success in Afghan War (Seattle PI)

A recent news article in the Seattle PI states that the U.S. troop surge has bought some time in the Afghan War but that victory is still a distant goal.  The article says that some short-term tactical victories have occurred on the ground in Helmand and Kandahar Province but other factors still loom large.  These factors include the inability of the Afghan government to extend its reach beyond the district or provincial level, the effectiveness of the Afghan National Police (ANP), and the reluctance of Pakistan to disrupt the Taliban strongholds in the frontier provinces of Pakistan adjacent to Afghanistan.  Read "US Afghan troop surge buys time but not victory" (December 18, 2010).

Washington Post Editorial Cites Steady Progress in Afghan

A recent editorial by The Washington Post cites some progress in the Afghan War.  It mentions the success in Kandahar Province and the adjacent Helmand Province where the Taliban have been dislodged.  While the editorial says Obama's policy is not a resounding success it does point to signs of progress.  See "Steady in Afghanistan" (December 18, 2010).

Brookings Institution Looks at the Afghanistan-Pakistan Review

The Afghanistan-Pakistan Review has been completed and the Brookings Institution has done an analysis of the paper.  See "Afghanistan-Pakistan Review Acknowledges Challenges", Brookings Institution, December 16, 2010.

Recommendatons for Engagement in Afghanistan

The International Crisis Group has released a paper entitled "Afghanistan: Exit vs Engagement", Asia Briefing No 115, 28 Nov 2010. 

"This paper is aimed at reminding policymakers of the deep problems that exist in Afghanistan. Any plan that fails to deal with the decay in Kabul will not succeed. President Hamid Karzai no longer enjoys the legitimacy and popularity he once had and he has subsequently lost his ability to stitch together lasting political deals. Despite the rhetoric surrounding reconciliation, Karzai is in no position to act alone as a guarantor for the interests of the Afghan state. In the current political context, negotiations with the insurgents stand a slim chance of success. Instead, the key to fighting the insurgency and bringing about the conditions for a political settlement lies in improving security, justice and governance and, as previous Crisis Group reports have shown, there are few quick fixes in these areas."

Read more about this paper at the link below:

Afghanistan: Exit vs Engagement

How To Tranisition in Afghanistan After 2011

The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has published a report entitled "Responsible Transition: Securing U.S. Interests in Afghanistan Beyond 2011", CNAS, December 7, 2010. The report is authored by Andrew Exum and LTG David Barno (former commander of forces in Afghanistan).  The report advocates for keeping a robust drone and special operations capability in Afghanistan beyond 2014.

Army Officer Describes Multi-Faceted COIN Strategy

Many stateside armchair pundits are trying to explain the strategy that General Petraeus is following in Afghanistan.  Some get it right while others don't.  For those having trouble understanding what the COIN strategy is here is some help.  An Army officer has provided some clarification in "Petraeus is changing the Afghan war's intensity, not its overall strategy", The Best Defense Blog at Foreign Policy, October 20, 2010.  Explained in the article is how CT works as part of COIN, the Anaconda Strategy (with attendent slide), clear/hold/build operations, Afghan Local Police (ALP) initiative, training of host nation troops, reconciliation and reintegration, and the strategic communications plan.

Strategy for Securing Eastern Afghanistan

The strategy for securing the eastern portion of Afghanistan from the Taliban revolves around choking the "ratlines" of the Taliban and security district centers and the highway network.  That is the essence of the campaign plan of the Regional East Command.  Read the details in "East Afghan Plan: Choke the 'Rat Lines,' Secure the Roads", Wired.com Danger Room, August 23, 2010.