Afghanistan Strategy to Include Meaningful Benchmarks
I think it won’t come to news as anyone to learn that the Obama administration’s plan for Afghanistan will include the dispatch of additional American military forces. I know not everyone is enthusiastic about that kind of escalating effort, but it is worth recalling that the total number of American troops in Afghanistan will be rising to only about 60,000—that’s much less than were in pre-surge Iraq. Indeed, it’s actually close to some of the high-end estimates for the number of so-called “residual” forces that are supposed to be left in Iraq after the American military has “left.” Under the circumstances, I think skeptics of grandiose American power projection—a group in which I’d include myself—would be better off pushing to curtail or eliminate these “residual” deployments of Iraq, which really make no strategic sense, rather than worrying about the small influx to Afghanistan for which I see a reasonable case.
Two developments that were less clearly going to happen, but which I find welcome if the Times’s description is correct are that the administration “for the first time set benchmarks for progress in fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban there [i.e., Afghanistan] and in Pakistan.” This is crucially important. For one thing, I think clear benchmarks actually make short-term success more likely since they focus the mission on objectives. But more importantly I’ve been worried for months now that Obama’s plan might get the administration caught up in the vicious logic of escalation, where you start escalating because you think there’s a chance it’ll work, and then if it doesn’t work all you can do is keep on escalating. I think the odds of the multi-modal influx of military forces, civilian development and governance experts, and money working are pretty good. But any honest person is going to have to concede that this is uncertain ground and that our fortunes depend in part on the actions of people we can’t control. It’s important to have some policy offramps, some points at which we might conclude that we can’t achieve our biggest goals and need to radically scale back.
The other interesting point is that “officials said he planned to recast the Afghan war as a regional issue involving not only Pakistan but also India, Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and the Central Asian states.” This is exactly right. As I was saying yesterday you have to at things through some very American-tinted lenses to see a “regional” consisting of Pakistan and Afghanistan somewhere on the map. Pakistan’s “regional” outlook is all about India, and Russia and China see Afghanistan as existing in a “region” of Central Asian states that border them. America’s interests in Afghanistan are narrow and a little bit idiosyncratic—relating to the contingent fact that Osama bin Laden took his operation there about a decade ago—but there are also enduring facts of geography and culture that shape other countries’ responses.
11 Responses to “Afghanistan Strategy to Include Meaningful Benchmarks”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
This LOSER, MUSLIM LOVING TERRORIST SUPPORTING SOCIALIST PIECE OF SHIT PRESIDENT is no more set on winning this war than Cindy Sheehan….If it was up to his arrogant, inexperienced punk ass we’d have already surrendered….
March 27th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Did anybody, in the President’s address, happen to see anything resembling a PLAN – like a way to actually do what he was promising to do – defeat Al Qaeda?
None of the news reports I saw indicated he said word one about an actual PLAN, other than throwing more money and troops at the problem.
Somehow Matt sees this as different than Iraq somewhere down the road.
Hope springs eternal for ignorant college kids.
March 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
[Whew and sheesh, after reading the only other comment here, I can see why there are no further comments. It certainly isn't reaffirming that Mr. Brinson still remembers Cindy Sheehan. I suppose he also blames Obama for Terri Schiavo.]
Matt, I responded earlier to a later post on the politics, that is who won the battle of goals and operations. Yet, this post matches my two primary concerns: 1) Is there a clearly written Mission Statement? and 2) Is there recognition we are not playing a dorm room game of Risk?
1) I read the general statements of goals and objectives. I agree with them and actually believe they can be achieved in a “short term”. I think this because our major players do not want to spend time, money, personnel, and overhead (political and economic graft). Obama, Patraeus, Clinton, and Holbrooke were dumped into a well and need to work as a team to get us out. I can think of no better team. I would, however, be surprised if there were a mission statement or meaningful benchmarks before June 2010.
2) Your second point is more important: Americans (in particular?) feel success when we can actually find a country on the map. To turn around and name the neighbors is nearly impossible, even for pundits and politicians who are paid to work at it.
To get a glimpse of national politics and border disputes, as in “Why have the Muslims split between Shia and Sunni?” try, “Oh yeah, the Baptists don’t like the Methodists, but there is a truce with the Catholics and Jews.”
Let me see, there is Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Israel and its Enemies, the Badlands south of Egypt (including Christians in Ethiopia and pirates in Somalia and genocide in Darfur, and …)
At some point soon we will need to appreciate, even venerate, foreign policy statesmen, probably from our Senate and House. Therein lies a void of leadership and an educator’s role in our common discourse. When Fareed Zakaria’s program is called GPS and is on CNN at what 2 p.m. on a Sunday, we have a long, long way to go.
March 28th, 2009 at 2:07 am
we have a long, long way to go.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Still waiting on somebody to indicate what the PLAN is…
Goals are not PLANS.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The plan for Afghanistan was clear the second Flight 11 struck the North Tower.
Muddle through.
That is why attacking Iraq was always such an appealing option. With Iraq on the planning boards, Bush administration war planners, neither ninnies nor nincompoops, could present the Joint Chiefs with two options instead of one.
Option one: Chiefs, you will stage operations out of the Hindu Kush, the graveyard of armies. It will be a long and unsatisfactory struggle. You will be fighting a shift shaping enemy in a complex paradigm your forces have never trained for. It will require whole new organizational skill sets. It will require nuanced engagement. It will require much dreaded and detested nation building from your officers and men. The best result you can hope for is a non-win. Be prepared to traverse this godforsaken moonscape again and again for ten years or more. When it is over, and your armies return home, Americans will look up and say “where the hell have YOU been.”
Option two: Chiefs. You can attack Iraq using a brilliantly orchestrated two phase blitzkrieg on an already defeated enemy. In the opening phase of this operation your Naval vessels, steaming in the Persian Gulf, your lake, will launch planes and unleash missile salvos into the heart of the enemy. Your Air Force Fighter Wings will fly menacing sorties day and night from the array of bases you have so presciently constructed on the coastline of the Arabian peninsula. This first phase will not be remembered as Death From the Heavens. It will be remembered to history as Shock and Awe.
In the wake of this neo-classic barrage the second phase will begin. Highly mobile fighting columns of Elite Army and Marine divisions will race along paved highways in M1 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting vehicles, rolling not toward something nebulous,like mountains, but towards a tangible target, Baghdad, the crescent of civilization. There will be little need to go off-road. There will be just a smidgen of rank enhancing street fighting. The overall victory will be swift and complete.
We, your civilian brothers-in-arms, will follow on your heels, and quickly mop up the whatever details might be left undone in this nearly pristine environment. Even before you can pack up your gear and return home, you will be covered in glory.
As soon as Iraq was floated I feared it was a done deal.
Iraq sung to warriors and generals in sonorous tones. Victory! Swift Victory! Afghanistan, in contrast, could only whisper, or growl. Quagmire. Vietnam. Endless.
The press, the populace, the first line of defense against bad war policy, never really looked up from their oblivious grazing. The Joint Chiefs, the only true impediment -in the whole damn world- the administration might have faced in the run up to Iraq, understandably succumbed to sweet music.
Now it falls on a new administration to “begin” the long struggle. More treasure and blood must be spent. Many more American men and women will die that far off barren and rocky place, and the people of Afghanistan will continue to feel the misery that comes from random misfortune of their location and historical happenstance.
The best case scenario is not quite bleak. In it, we achieve a kind of regional stasis, which diminishes to some extant the ability of nefarious forces to attack the home soil. The the American two war Odyssey finally ends, and our troops come home. There is little fanfare from the homefront for our returning heroes, which neither surprises nor angers them. Instead, they take deep satisfaction knowing it wasn’t all a complete waste, because they left behind them a definably better place.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:24 am
I think what Obama is doing by putting more forces on the ground is to escalate the war initially and put pressure on the insurgents and then bribe people away from Taliban. This is classic stick and carrot policy and how much it will succeed; only time will tell.
Another very important aspect is the increase in Afghan national army from 80000 to 134000. I believe that this is most important aspect of his speech as a strong central force will definitely have some impact on the overall situation. If the situation in Afghanistan stabilise to the extent that local army takes charge of the situation (even if the Taliban are not totally defeated) and foreign forces leave than situation in Pakistan will cool down as well.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
April 8th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
The style of writing is very familiar to me. Did you write guest posts for other bloggers?
April 9th, 2009 at 4:08 am
FANTASTIC!
April 15th, 2009 at 6:02 am
My fellow on Orkut shared this link with me and I’m not dissapointed that I came to your blog.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’ll share it on Twitter.