Back to Afghanistan

The Obama administration is beginning to unveil some details of its new Afghanistan strategy, and US military leaders are for the most part pleased with the changes being made.

First announced in February, Obama plans to send 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan this spring and summer to combat the Taliban insurgency. General David McKiernan, the top US commander in Afghanistan, requested in October of last year as many as four combat brigades, or about 30,000 additional troops. The Obama administration is signalling a new commitment to the war in Afghanistan by granting the request, which President Bush could not do due to deployments in Iraq.

The war in Afghanistan has long taken a back seat, in terms of funding and manpower, to the war in Iraq. Relative stability in Iraq and upcoming redeployment plans will free up manpower in a military establishment that has been stressed to the limit for years. Often called the "Forgotten War", Afghanistan suffered greatly from this lack of attention as the once-beaten insurgency staged a recent resurgence. In the words of counterinsurgency expert and Afghanistan veteran Craig Mullaney, "You get what you pay for, and we haven't paid for much over the past seven years."

Envoy Richard Holbrooke announced that US forces will discontinue efforts to stop opium production in Afghanistan. The failed counter-narcotics program cost $800 million since 2001 and, according to Holbrooke, "...is the most wasteful and ineffective program I have seen in 40 years." In addition to wasting much-needed funds, the program alienated countless Afghans when American troops destroyed the only source of income for many -- their poppy fields. As the program is discontinued, more funds will be used in developing alternative sources of income for struggling Afghan farmers.

The newfound commitment to Afghanistan by the US is causing some stress with NATO allies, who are reluctant to provide their own troop increases. US diplomats say that they expect their NATO allies to come through with more troops to show their dedication to achieving victory. Commentators are calling this a key moment and test for the 60-year-old alliance. Domestic pressures in many NATO countries limit their ability to contribute, and it appears the war will be substantially "re-Americanized" as Obama deploys more troops.

Two seemingly-contradictory positions on the war in Afghanistan were voiced in the past week. Echoing the sentiments of many US military officials, counterinsurgency experts, and observers, John Nagl said that the war in Afghanistan was not even halfway through. Those most familiar with the situation in Afghanistan agree that a long, hard fight lies ahead. American forces must not only launch attacks on Taliban forces, they must win over the Afghan population, support and improve the corrupt and incompetent national government, develop economic infrastructure, and mold a governing system that fits the unique social organization of the Afghan people.

In seeming contrast with this prediction was a statement by Barack Obama that the US must have an "exit strategy" in Afghanistan. "There's got to be a sense that this is not a perpetual drift," Obama said in an interview on 60 Minutes. Apparently Obama was referring to the need for concrete measures of progress and well-defined goals of US involvement. His choice of words, however, certainly contrasted with his recent decision to ramp up efforts in the troubled nation.

Lastly, there was the announcement by Richard Holbrooke that, "The heart of the problem for the West is in western Pakistan." It is well-known among US forces in the region and experts that the future of Afghanistan will be primarily determined across the border in Pakistan. It is in Pakistan's northwestern territories, where the Pakistani government holds little power, that the Taliban recruits, trains, arms, and organizes their forces.

For years, the CIA has launched unmanned aerial attacks on Taliban positions in Pakistan -- a practice continued and intensified by the Obama administration. However, relations with Pakistan make any cross-border operations by US troops impossible. America has had little choice but to hope the Pakistani government would control the Taliban, but the situation has gotten substantially worse since the loss of Pervez Musharraf as President of Pakistan.

Taliban attacks on American logistical lines in Pakistan increased markedly over the past year. Even more troubling, the overwhelmed Pakistani government recently conceded governing authority in the western Swat region (which borders Afghanistan) to the Taliban. With the Taliban in complete control of this border territory, attacks in Afghanistan can only increase.

Numerous experts on the war in Afghanistan predict that the war will be won or lost in Pakistan. Any US operations on Pakistani territory, however, risk causing a diplomatic crisis with the fragile, nuclear-armed nation. Figuring out how to destroy a powerful insurgency protected by an international border will be the greatest challenge of the war.