ASG Blog
-
Momentum for Ending the Afghanistan War
Published: November 21st, 2011
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
Last week, we noted that most of the GOP presidential candidates don’t seem to be on the same page as the American public when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. This week, however, we have a more encouraging sign that some members of Congress are listening.The indication that support for ending the war in Afghanistan came in the form of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill, introduced by Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon. Merkley, a Democrat, was joined by two Republicans (Rand Paul, Kentucky, and Mike Lee from Utah) and five Democrats (Tom Udall of New Mexico, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Iowa’s Tom Harkin) in sponsoring the amendment, a Sense of the Congress on Transition of Military and Security Operations in Afghanistan.
The amendment (text available here) notes the continued high costs of continuing the war in Afghanistan, the fact that the primary US objectives have already been achieved, and that the US “will continue to support the development of Afghanistan with a strong diplomatic and counterterrorism presence in the region” even after troops are withdrawn. It calls on the president to plan an expedited timetable – bringing troops home earlier than the currently planned 2014.The Merkley amendment represents the growing momentum in efforts to end the war. If passed, it would be a tremendous achievement.
As always, however, there are several caveats. First, this amendment is simply a “sense of” resolution. It is not legally binding, as the text makes very clear:
“It is the sense of Congress that…the President should expedite the transition of the responsibility for military and security operations in Afghanistan to the Government of Afghanistan…” [emphasis added]
Sense of the Congress resolutions may create political pressure for the administration, but have no direct effect on policy.
Secondly, even if the amendment is passed and even if it does create political space for an accelarated drawdown, it may be too little too late. If momentum for ending the drawdown is growing, there are signs that the opposition is growing stronger as well. Afghanistan’s recent Loya Jirga laid the groundwork for a ten-year strategic agreement with the US that could allow US troops to remain in the country long after 2014.
Speaking of the drawdown deadline, it’s far from clear what is supposed to happen by December 2014, the date which President Obama established as the goal for removal of all United States combat troops from Afghanistan and the transition to local security forces.
The Merkley amendment says that “President Obama has established a goal of removing all United States combat troops from Afghanistan by December 2014.” Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Fluornoy has a completely different take on the 2014 deadline:
“2014 is not a withdrawal date,” she said in a recent interview. “It’s an inflection point where we put Afghans firmly in the lead and we step back into a consistently supporting role, but with much lower numbers of troops.”
Those who want to prolong the war are gearing up for a long debate. Passing the Mekley amendment would be a welcome step, but it is just one step. Ending the war will require many more.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: “I say it’s time to come home”
Published: November 16th, 2011
Jon Huntsman spoke for most Americans when he said in the recent debate,“I say it’s time to come home” from Afghanistan. Unfortunately, Huntsman is one of the few policymakers whose position lines up with public opinion. According to a new CBS poll, 53% of Americans believe the US should not be involved in Afghanistan, while only 36% say the US is doing the right thing. Despite strong public support for a drawdown, politicians from John McCain to Rick Perry are concerned that the drawdown is happening too fast.
Americans have paid for ten years of war in Afghanistan with blood and treasure. When it comes to a drawdown, they are the ones who should set the timeline. Let’s hope policymakers are paying attention and will listen.
FROM ASG
11-15-11
The GOP Candidates on the Afghanistan War: “I can’t,…. I can’t, sorry. Oops.
Afghanistan Study Group blog by Mary Kaszynski
Ninety-seven thousand (97,000) US troops are currently stationed in Afghanistan, but you might never have known that from Saturday’s debate. The Republican presidential candidates were eager to talk Iran and Pakistan, but generally fumbled their way through the few questions presented to them on Afghanistan.ARTICLES
11-14-11
War savings and debt reduction: Take two
Washington Post by Lori Montgomery
The congressional “supercommittee” is looking to count as budget savings as much as $700 billion that the nation no longer plans to spend on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next decade, an accounting gimmick that has drawn fire from both Democrats and Republicans.11-15-11
Bonn and beyond: Afghanistan’s uncertain future
Foreign Policy’s Afpak Channel by Javid Ahmad
In light of the difficulties and looming uncertainties ahead, it is unclear whether another Bonn conference will help Afghanistan positively shape its future. While there is no silver bullet for Afghanistan’s ills, next month’s meeting will at least provide an opportunity for the United States and NATO to lay out a functional roadmap ahead of and beyond 2014 for a successful political, security and economic transition, good governance, peace and reconciliation, and rule of law.OPINION
11-8-11
So Long, American Imperial Dream
Mother Jones by Tom Engelhardt
It’s more or less a given that any American dreams for Afghanistan, like Britain’s and Russia’s before it, will be buried someday in the rubble of a devastated but resistant land, no matter what resources Washington choses to continue to squander on the task.”11-11-11
Are The Costs, Years and Sacrifice Worth It In Afghanistan?
Policymic by Dario DiBattista
I think at some point we veterans need to speak up and speak out. I’m far from an activist or hyper-political person. But someone needs to keep up the dialogue of the obvious question: For Afghanistan, what are we still doing there? -
The GOP Candidates on the Afghanistan War: “I can’t, …. I can’t, sorry. Oops.”
Published: November 15th, 2011
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
Ninety-seven thousand (97,000) US troops are currently stationed in Afghanistan, but you might never have known that from Saturday’s debate. The Republican presidential candidates were eager to talk Iran and Pakistan, but generally fumbled their way through the few questions presented to them on Afghanistan. Here’s a breakdown of what they said – and what they should have said.Rick Perry: Perry’s Afghanistan strategy seems to be to give as few strategic details as possible. Asserting vaguely that “The mission must be completed there,” Perry went on to say that “The idea that we will have wasted our treasure and the lives of young Americans to not secure Afghanistan is not appropriate.” If it were up to Perry, it seems that much more blood and treasure will be spent for the nebulous goal of securing Afghanistan.
Perry also ridiculed the idea of a drawdown timeline as “irresponsible”. Perry isn’t alone in this belief, and it’s not without strategic merit. But those who oppose a timeline are forgetting two things. First, contrary to what Perry says, the US is not “in conflict with” Afghanistan – Afghanistan is our ally in the fight against terrorism. It may seem like a technicality, but it’s important. Treating Afghanistan like an ally and partner surely means letting them in on our withdrawal plans. Secondly, the American people are paying for this war, with their lives and their taxes. Policymakers should be accountable to the public for their Afghanistan strategy, and that includes a drawdown timeline.
According to a recent CBS poll, 53% of Americans support a drawdown. Perry would do well to listen to the public.
Rick Santorum: Santorum certainly has a vision for victory in Afgahnistan: “The Taliban is a neutered force. They are no longer a security threat Afghan people, to our country. That would be victory.” Whether that vision is achievable at a viable cost is another question.
With Afghanistan out of the way, Santorum pivoted rather abruptly to “the bigger issue.” “This is the most important national security issue that we’re gonna be dealing with here in this year,” he said. “And that’s the issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.”
It’s worth noting that both Perry and Santorum were clearly more interested in talking about Iran than Afghanistan. Perry used half of his allotted time for Afgahnistan wrapping up his comments on Iran. Moderator Scott Pelley gave Santorum a break, acknowledging that Santorum was more interested in Iran, and actually posed Iran and Afghanistan questions simultaneously. Perhaps he suspected Santorum was going to talk about Iran no matter what the question was.
Michelle Bachmann: Let’s give Rep. Bachmann the benefit of the doubt and assume that when she referred to “the decision that by next September, our troops will be withdrawn” she meant the surge force will be withdrawn. That is the current administration’s plan – return to pre-surge levels of 68,000 by summer 2012 and transition to local security forces by the end of 2014.
Rep. Bachmann then made an interesting leap. If the drawdown progresses as planned, “How do we expect any of our allies to continue to work to– with us?” It’s unclear what exactly she means by this. Britain, France, and Germany have already announced plans to follow the US lead in withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Bachmann concluded by asking “How can we even begin to seek the peace with the Haqqani Network that are in the eastern regions?” Again, this is an inexplicable leap. The presence of US soldiers and Marines has done little to facilitate the peace process thus far and this seems unlikely to change.
Jon Huntsman: Once again, Huntsman has shown that he can he articulate a clear stance on Afghanistan, he will stick to that position (Perry should be taking notes).
Huntsman laid out the mission:
“I say this nation has achieved its key objectives in Afghanistan. We’ve had free elections in 2004. We’ve uprooted the Taliban. We’ve dismantled Al Qaeda. We have killed Osama bin Laden.”He showed that he understands current priorities:“I say this nation’s future is not Afghanistan. This nation’s future is not Iraq. This nation’s future is how prepared we are to meet the 21st Century competitive challenges. That’s economic and that’s education. And that’s gonna play out over the Asia-Pacific region. And we’re either prepared for that reality or we’re not. I don’t want to be nation building in Afghanistan when this nation so desperately needs to be built.”
And he even outlined defense requirements:
“We still have work to do. We don’t need 100,000 troops nation building, many of whom can’t cross the wire. I think we need a component that gathers tactical intelligence. We need enhanced special forces, response capability for rapid response. And we need some ongoing commitment to train the local Afghan National Army. That’s not 100,000 troops. That’s well south of that. We are fighting an asymmetric threat, a counterterror threat. Not only there, but in Waziristan and every other corner of the world. And we need to prepare for that as a reality of our 21st Century foreign policy.”
Mitt Romney: After floundering on Afghanistan policy early in his campaign, Romney seems to have come up with an answer he’s happy with: “Our surge troops should have been withdrawn by December of next year, not by December. And the timetable, by the end of 2014, is the right timetable for us to be completely withdrawn from Afghanistan, other than a small footprint of support forces.”It’s hard not to see this answer as trying to appeal to a broad base. On the one hand, by critiquing the timeline for surge troops, he differentiates his position from the administration, and appeals to traditional hawks. But by sticking to the 2014 date, he can appeal to the fiscally minded, and the ever growing segment of the public that wants a drawdown.
All in all, not a bad answer – but not a great answer either.
Newt Gingrich: After the vagaries and equivocations of the other candidates, the former speaker of the House was refreshingly straightforward. “I think this is so much bigger and deeper a problem than we’ve talked about as a country that we– we don’t have a clue how hard this is gonna be,” Gingrich said. He was referring to the strategic complexities of fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan and a shadow war in Pakistan, but his point applies to Afghanistan policy as a whole. How hard will it be to “secure Afghanistan”? Will it take another ten years and a trillion dollars? Anyone who wants to stay in Afghanistan should consider these questions carefully.
Herman Cain: Cain’s contribution to the discussion of Afghanistan policy was limited to noting how complicated it is. “There is a lot of clarity missing..in this whole region,” he said. Asked whether he would send US forces into Pakistan “to clear out those safe havens of the enemy,”
Cain replied, “That is a decision that I would make after consulting with the commanders on the ground, our intelligence sources, after having discussions with Pakistan, discussions with Afghanistan. And here’s why. We pointed out earlier that it is unclear as to where we stand with Pakistan. It is unclear where we stand with Afghanistan.” A diplomatic answer, perhaps, but one would like a presidential candidate to have a greater command of the details.Cain finished with a valid point: “Victory is not clearly defined.” But you have to wonder if he would be able to follow through on his promise to “make sure that the mission is clear, and the definition of victory’s clear.” He certainly wasn’t able to articulate a clear mission in the debate.
Overall, it was a disappointing showing from the GOP candidates. When they weren’t fuzzy on the details, they were dismissive. The 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan probably would not agree with Cain’s assertion that Afghanistan is less important than Iran or Pakistan. They, and all Americans, deserve better answers.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Time For a New Strategy
Published: November 9th, 2011
The news from this past week was full of the story of Maj. Gen. Peter Fuller, who was dismissed from his post as deputy commander of the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan for some blunt comments about Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Of course, we’ve seen this before; military commanders’ excursions into politics are rarely smiled upon. What’s different about this situation is that Fuller’s remarks on “the sacrifices that America is making to provide for their [Afghanistan’s] security” resonate with a lot of people. After ten years and more than a trillion dollars, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Americans have sacrificed enough, and that we need a new strategy to replace this broken one.
FROM AFG
11-8-11
Insanity At The House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
Last week’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, “2014 and Beyond: U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan,” was revealing for two reasons. First, after a brief nod to public support for the drawdown, the witnesses and representatives discussed at length why we should do exactly the opposite of what the majority of Americans want. Secondly, the entire hearing went by without a single acknowledgment that the policy options under discussion will have fiscal consequences.ARTICLES
11-1-11
As U.S. Exits Iraq, “Endgame” in Afghanistan Remains Elusive
Inter Press Service by Barbara Slavin
Washington’s failure to gain Iraqi approval for a significant U.S. military presence in that country beyond December could make it harder for Afghanistan to agree to a similar deployment beyond 2014.11-5-11
Multiple missteps led to drone killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan
Los Angeles Times by David S. Cloud and David Zucchino
Though no dereliction of duty was found, a Pentagon investigation raised troubling questions: Among them: Was the Predator missile fired too quickly?OPINION
11-1-11
A Long List of Suckers
New York Times by Thomas Freidman
“America today needs much more cost-efficient ways to influence geopolitics in Asia than keeping troops there indefinitely. We need to better leverage the natural competitions in this region to our ends. There is more than one way to play The Great Game, and we need to learn it.”11-6-11
In search of long-term stability in Afghanistan
The Philadelphia Inquirer by Melissa Skorka
“[Reintigration in Afghanistan] will be measured not in how many insurgents enroll in conventional defector programs nor in the decline in attacks or casualties, but rather in the villages’ individual and collective willingness to take a stand and tell insurgent fighters to lay down their arms and cut their ties to the insurgents in Pakistan. Getting to that point will first take a change in our own mind-set.11-7-11
Gauging the military’s facts behind a ‘daily impact’ assessment
Washington Post by Walter Pincus
I suggest we go back to a reasonable core Defense Department budget. And if a president sends U.S. forces into an extended fight, whether it is another Iraq or Libya or Somalia, he or she should be forced immediately to seek congressional approval — not for sending the forces as sought by the ineffective War Powers Act, but rather for the additional funds needed to pay for the White House-initiated operation. -
Insanity at the House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
Published: November 8th, 2011
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
Female Engagment Team visits Helmand communities
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Last week’s House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, “2014 and Beyond: U.S. Policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan,” was revealing for two reasons. First, after a brief nod to public support for the drawdown, the witnesses and representatives discussed at length why we should do exactly the opposite of what the majority of Americans want. Secondly, the entire hearing went by without a single acknowledgment that the policy options under discussion will have fiscal consequences.
Rep. Steve Chabot’s opening remarks set the tone for the hearing.
“Unfortunately, although the 2014 withdrawal date may be politically expedient, it is, in my view, strategically risky…It is unclear what we are doing, when we are doing it, how we are doing it, and even what we are trying to accomplish beyond withdrawal as soon as possible.”
This is the problem with Afghanistan policy in a nutshell. “It is unclear what we are doing” – even after ten years and billions of dollars. Yet Chabot and other drawdown critics want to continue doing the same thing, no matter the cost.
Chabot isn’t the only one who prefers a military solution despite ten years of evidence that troops are not the answer. Carnegie’s Ashley Tellis questioned the wisdom of setting any drawdown deadline:
For an adversary like the Taliban, what the deadline has done is simply given them room to hope that they can run down the clock, not to engage in serious negotiations…to simply hold back the resources in the expectation that the real fight will come not before 2014 but after.
Tellis argued for delaying the withdrawal of surge troops beyond 2012, while Lt. Gen. David Barno (Center for a New American Security) argued for maintaining a presence beyond 2014. “I personally think that force needs to be 25 to 35,000 Americans, who do counterterrorism on the one side and also provide advisers and support for the Afghan forces that continue the counterinsurgency fight,” Barno said. “That shuts the light at the end of the Taliban’s tunnel if that happens.”
Opposition to the drawdown isn’t entirely unexpected. After all, many opinion leaders have consistently advocated keeping troops in Afghanistan. It is concerning, however, to see that support for prolonging the war is still strong among policymakers, at a time when public support for the war all-time low.
Also concerning is the fact that this policy discussion lacked any acknowledgment of budgetary realities. Policy isn’t made in a vacuum. It’s easy to say “we need X-number of troops,” but how are we going to pay for them?
The great military strategist Bernard Brodie once noted that “Strategy wears a dollar sign.” Policymakers should take note. Their decisions have fiscal consequences, and it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: What Price Success?
Published: November 3rd, 2011
Sometimes it can be difficult to weigh the success of US operations in Afghanistan. Signs of progress in one area are often offset by losses in other areas. We saw this in the news over the past week. A new report from the Department of Defense pointed to progress in building the Afghan security forces, but cautioned that security concerns, particularly the threat posed by insurgents crossing over the Pakistan border, remain. The first meeting of Afghanistan and Pakistan since the assassination of Afghan peace envoy and former president Burhanuddin Rabbani seemed promising, but ultimately failed to lead to a breakthrough in the peace process.
The unambiguous part of our efforts in Afghanistan is how much they have cost, not only in terms of dollars, but also lives. This past Saturday seventeen people, including twelve Americans, were killed in Kabul by a Taliban car bomb. It was the deadliest attack on coalition forces since August. Reflecting on our losses in Afghanistan, and how little we have gained, it’s hardly surprising that support for the war is at all-time low.
ASG
The Iraq Withdrawal: Implications For Afghanistan
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
The announcement that the US will withdraw virtually all troops from Iraq, as mandated by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), has been met with praise, criticism, and speculation. Mostly about the behind-the-scenes negotiations. Setting aside the political questions – who’s “to blame” for the withdrawal, – let’s take a look at what the facts of the Iraq case may mean for the future of US policy in Afghanistan.ARTICLES
10-24-11
White House sides with Senate on bill to freeze defense spending
The Hill by John Bennett
The White House has weighed in on the congressional debate about Pentagon spending by siding with a Senate bill that would shrink the Defense Department’s 2012 budget request by $26 billion…The letter [from the administration to Senate appropriators] said the Senate bill’s $513 billion proposed budget, which essentially freezes the agency’s budget for a second, consecutive year “will sustain our strong military.”10-27-11
In House testimony, Clinton asks for patience on Afghanistan, Pakistan
The Washington Post byKaren DeYoung
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appealed to skeptical lawmakers for patience and support…“I will be the first to admit that working with our Afghan and Pakistani partners is not always easy,” Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “But these relationships are advancing America’s national security interests, and walking away from them would undermine those interests.”10-28-11
Safe havens threaten Afghan goals, report says
Politico by Charles Hoskinson
Coalition forces have made important security gains in Afghanistan and are on track for a full handoff to local forces in 2014, a Pentagon report said Friday, but safe havens in Pakistan and weak Afghan governance continue to threaten that goal…Adding to the concern are continued reports of corruption and dysfunction in the Afghan government, which the report says “has made only limited progress in building the human and institutional capacity necessary for sustainable government.”CNN Poll: Support for Afghanistan war at all time low
CNN by CNN Political Unit
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Friday, only 34% of the public says they support the war in Afghanistan, one point less than the previous low of 35%, with 63% opposed to the conflict.OPINION
10-25-11
U.S. Iraq Withdrawal a Gift to Iran? No, the U.S. Iraq Invasion Was the Gift to Iran
Time’s Global Spin by Tony Karon
The prime security threat to Iran from Iraq would be the presence of U.S. forces. But they’re leaving, thanks in no small part to the opposition of Iran-allied Shi’ite political parties. So why would Iran want to go and jeopardize those gains? It makes little sense for Iran to start a new war in Iraq when they’re arguably winning the peace.
-
The Iraq Withdrawal: Implications for Afghanistan
Published: October 31st, 2011
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
The announcement that the US will withdraw virtually all troops from Iraq, as mandated by the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), has been met with praise, criticism, and speculation. Mostly about the behind-the-scenes negotiations. Setting aside the political questions – who’s “to blame” for the withdrawal, – let’s take a look at what the facts of the Iraq case may mean for the future of US policy in Afghanistan.
The Good: The SOFA timeline was never set in stone. Just a few weeks ago we heard of negotiations to keep 3,000 to 5,000 troops in Iraq. Then there was the withdrawal announcement, and the story seemed to be that Iraq simply hadn’t asked us to stay. Later, we learned that immunity for US troops was the sticking point in negotiations.Clearly domestic politics was a factor for both countries. Ultimately, however, when all the politics played out, the Status of Forces Agreement held up. And that’s a good thing for Afghanistan.
2014, the administration’s planned deadline for withdrawing from Afghanistan, is still several years away, and a lot can happen in the meantime. But sticking to the Iraq drawdown timeline is a step towards strategic and fiscal discipline.The Bad: All of the troops are leaving Iraq (with the exception of about 150 to guard the embassy) but some 5,000 security contractors will remain. Add to that approximately 4,000 contractors who will assist diplomats, as well as a still-to-be-determined number of military trainers. It’s clear that the US will be maintaining a significant presence there for some time.
An enduring presence in Iraq and Afghanistan translates into enduring costs. In addition to personnel costs in both countries, the US commitment to maintaining Iraqi and Afghani security forces may be substantial. And as the base defense budget starts to feel the squeeze of budget cuts, non-war spending is making its way into the war budget. All of these factors will combine to keep war costs high, even as the drawdowns progress.
The Ugly: Critics equate the US withdrawal from Iraq to a victory for Iran. This is a twisted version of an ugly truth. The US invasion, and subsequent operations, undoubtedly pushed Iraq into the Shiite/Iran camp. This was undoubtedly a mistake. But it’s a past mistake that cannot be corrected with troops, whether we leave ten or ten thousand.
The fact of the matter is that threats to US national security interests still exist, and will continue to do so, regardless of the number of US boots on the ground. Recognizing this fact, scaling back our ambitions for the region, and investing in the right tools to achieve limited goals is crucial if we are to achieve any kind of success.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader: Iraq, A Trillion Dollar War
Published: October 28th, 2011
Friday’s announcement that US troops will leave Iraq by the end of this year was a welcome milestone. The relief was tempered, however; by sobering reminders that the our work is far from over. In Iraq, thousands of security contractors will remain after troops leave. Soon, US-Iraq negotiations on military training possibilities will begin. In Afghanistan, costs continue to add up, and the peace process limps along.
Bringing the troops home from Iraq is a step in the right direction – but it’s just one step. We’re still a long way from a sustainable, smart strategy.
ASG
10-26-11
Navigating The Afghanistan Peace Process: It’s Going To Be A Bumpy Road
Afghanistan Study Group by Mary Kaszynski
“I don’t know any peace process that hasn’t been a bumpy process,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her trip to the Middle East last week. Her words proved timely. US-Afghanistan relations encountered a bump not two days later, when President Karzai said that Afghanistan would back Pakistan in the event of a US-Pakistan war.ARTICLES
10-20-11
Calculating the Costs of War
The Washington Times by Arnaud de Borchgrave
Leon E. Panetta’s first major address as defense secretary was clearly designed to be magisterial, the credo of the Free World, still headed by the United States, cognizant of its worldwide responsibilities, albeit with much budgetary belt-tightening. He didn’t mention the two wasteful wars that had little to do with defending Western civilization.10-22-11
Sending troops home could pave way for more non-competitive defense contracting
iWatch News by R. Jeffrey Smith
Out go all the U.S. troops by year’s end, President Obama said Friday about Iraq. And in go the contractors, along with some familiar contracting problems, say other government officials and independent experts.
10-25-11
Iraq war will cost more than World War II
The Christian Science Monitor by David R. Francis
Anyone curious about the cost of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can look it up on costofwar.com, up to the latest fraction of a second. Last weekend, the Iraq war had cost more than $800 billion since 2001; the Afghan war, $467 billion plus…So President Obama’s announcement that all US troops will be out of Iraq by year end should mean some drop in ongoing military spending. But the budget relief probably won’t be as much as you might expect.10-25-11
Sen. Rockefeller: Troop drawdown in Afghanistan needs to be faster
The Hill by Daniel Strauss
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the former chairman and current member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, called on a faster withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan.
“As I have said for some time, it’s time to dramatically accelerate the troop drawdown that began in July and end expensive reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. Our continued commitment of 100,000 troops and over $100 billion a year to the war effort in Afghanistan is neither sustainable nor strategically wise,” Rockefeller said Tuesday in a statement.OPINIONS
10-17-11
Plans for War Costs
Defense News by Matthew Leatherman
Ten years of conflict brought with it many reminders, including that the U.S. State Department is an equal partner in national security and that economic security hinges on a deliberate marriage of strategy and spending. Learning those lessons is proving to be its own struggle. Today, the State Department hopes to mimic one of the Pentagon’s bad budget habits even as lawmakers flirt with restraining defense spending. Congress needs to demand more responsibility from budgeters on both sides of the Potomac. -
Navigating the Afghanistan Peace Process: It’s Going to be a Bumpy Road
Published: October 26th, 2011
Mary Kaszynski
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
“I don’t know any peace process that hasn’t been a bumpy process,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during her trip to the Middle East last week. Her words proved timely. US-Afghanistan relations encountered a bump not two days later, when President Karzai said that Afghanistan would back Pakistan in the event of a US-Pakistan war.
During her visit to Kabul, Sec. Clinton (never known for pulling punches when it comes to Pakistan) sent a “clear, unequivocal message to the government and the people of Pakistan that they must be part of the solution. And that means ridding their country of terrorists who kill their own people and who cross the border to kill in Afghanistan.”
Karzai agreed, which is why his comments Sunday came as something of a surprise. “Perplexing,” some called it; Others a “rhetorical flourish.” However, the US State Department says it’s irrelevant: “It is not an issue, because it [a war] is not going to happen.”
The explanation for Karzai’s remarks is simple, according to Afghan officials: they were misinterpreted. Karzai was referring to Pakistan’s accepting Afghani refugees, and indicating that if there were ever a need, Afghanistan would return the favor.
It’s hardly surprising that Karzai would distance himself from the statement. In addition to the reaction he got from the West, his remarks must have raised a few eyebrows in New Delhi. India and Afghanistan recently announced a strategic framework for cooperation on a number of issues – security, but also trade, education and social ties.
The episode was a perfect example of the complexities surrounding multi-state peace negotiations in the Af-Pak region. Afghanistan is trying to reach out to both its neighbors – which is essential if we’re to achieve peace and stability in the region – while maintaining its relationship with the US. In this case, Karzai’s attempt to show solidarity with Pakistan backfired with Western allies.
The takeaway for the US is that the flare-up of this past weekend is typical of the peace process. As Afghanistan and Pakistan step up to the negotiating table, and take on responsibilities for regional security, we may not like everything that comes out of the process. In fact, we will have to “get realistic” about our own goals, accepting that there will be bumps along the way, and that we may not always be driving.
-
Afghanistan Weekly Reader – Drawdown Debates
Published: October 19th, 2011
You may have read a report from the Associated Press this Saturday that the US will follow through on the agreement to remove virtually all military forces from Iraq by the end of the year. If so, you were probably disappointed when the White House immediately dismissed the report, saying negotiations on US troop levels post-2011 are still ongoing.
A similar debate is happening for Afghanistan. The administration’s plans to transition to local security forces by 2014. Military leaders, from JCS chair Gen. Martin Dempsey to Gen. John Allen, the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan, have stated that that US troops will be there longer.
Meanwhile, as we read about record-high casualties, continuing costs, and the faltering peace negotiations, we can’t help but wonder: how much longer will the debate continue before it becomes clear/before we realize that a new strategy is needed?
FROM ASG
10-14-11
Want Security? Buy A Warlord
ASG blog by Mary Kaszynski
Earlier this year we reported on the case of Afghan National Police Commander Azizullah, a protégé of US Special Ops Forces and human rights offender, according to an internal UN report. The report detailed several instances of police brutality involving Azizullah, and questioned the reasoning for keeping him on the US payroll. NATO officials conducted an internal investigation and brushed off the allegations, so TIME’s Julius Cavendish looked into the case, conducting interviews with local sources to find out how the stories match up. The results of the investigation are disturbing.10-18-11
Beyond Boots On The Ground – A Cost-Effective Approach To US Foreign Policy
ASG blog by Mary Kaszynski
The violence of the past several weeks, particularly the assassination of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani and the collapse of the peace negotiations, have highlighted the multifaceted nature of Afghanistan’s troubles: poor governance, faltering economy, not to mention ongoing tensions with Pakistan. US soldiers and Marines cannot provide solutions to these problems – they are not trained to do so, they shouldn’t be asked to try.ARTICLES
10-12-11
Nato success against Taliban in Afghanistan ‘may be exaggerated’
The Guardian by Julian Borger
The success of one of Nato’s principal tactics against the Taliban – targeted night raids aimed at killing or capturing leaders of the insurgency – may have been exaggerated to make the military campaign in Afghanistan look more effective, according to a report published on Wednesday.
The study shows that for every “leader” killed in the raids, eight other people also died, although the raids were designed to be a precise weapon aimed at decapitating the Taliban on the battlefield by removing their commanders.
10-15-11
CIA to Fuse Troops’ Opinions in War Analysis
AP by Kimberley Dozier
The CIA is giving the military a greater say in the debate over how the war in Afghanistan is going by allowing battlefield commanders to weigh into the analysis at early stages, U.S. officials say.
The move prompted a flurry of criticism in the intelligence community’s old guard, worried the change presages a campaign by newly arrived general-turned-CIA director David Petraeus to improve the poor marks the CIA gave the war effort in its own analysis earlier this year.
10-17-11
More than Half of Afghans See NATO as Occupiers
SpiegelOnline
Fully 60 percent of Afghans fear that the country will descend into civil war once NATO forces leave, but over half see the Western alliance as occupiers. A new survey carried out be the Konrad Adenauer Foundation has found that the mood in Afghanistan is worsening.10-18-11
Afghan security to cost “$5 billion a year” after pullout
Reuters by Zhou Xin
A fully fledged Afghan national security force, including army and police, will cost about $5 billion a year after international combat forces pull out in 2014, the Afghanistan defence minister told reporters on Tuesday. The price tag estimated by Abdul Rahim Wardak was more than three times the Afghan government’s domestic revenue in 2010, and about a third of the country’s gross domestic product.
