StormWarning’s Counterterrorism

Noting that despite some successes vs the Taliban, many goals for 2007 have not been met, the White House now concludes that the situation in Afganistan is deteriorating.  This bleak assessment from the National Security Council underscores a deep disagreement between U.S. military and intelligence officials.

Intelligence analysts acknowledge the battlefield victories, but they highlight the Taliban’s unchallenged expansion into new territory, an increase in opium poppy cultivation and the weakness of the government of President Hamid Karzai as signs that the war effort is deteriorating.

Storm comment: Admittedly, the time projection was wrong, but many of this writer’s posts about the situation in Afghanistan, including what appears to have been a little read entry, Losing Afghanistan - Redux (this post includes links to a number of articles on Afghanistan), have argued that Afghanistan was an unfinished war, and that leaving the “clean-up” to NATO troops was a faulty decision.  NATO lacked the resolve to complete the job.  Now, with poppy cultivation nearing all-time highs, and with the Taliban resurgent, if not in control of large swaths of the country, one could conclude that little has been accomplished in that region in six years.  Also, it is clear that Musharraf’s concessions to the Taliban on his side of the Durand Line have contributed to the lingering instability in Afghanistan.  Like it or not, the two “stans” are linked at the hip.  Anyway…

It looks like the NSC report is another example of leaked information…and the NSC report itself conflicts with other, more rosy pictures.  Some key points:

● while individual military battles against the Taliban have been successful, other areas remain wanting, report said.

● “One can point to a lot of indicators that are positive,” one senior intel official not authorized to speak about the Afghani situation

● “We go out there and achieve our objectives and kill bad guys.”

● extremists have little trouble finding replacements…While many foreigners, mostly Pakistani, join the Taliban, several officials said the main source of new recruits remain unhappy Afghans

● “There doesn’t seem to be a lot of progress being made … I would think that from (the Taliban) standpoint, things are looking decent” (according to another anonymous intelligence official)

Senior White House officials privately express pessimism about Afghanistan. There is anxiety over the current upheaval in neighboring Pakistan, where both the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain headquarters, logistical support and training camps along the Afghan border. But “in all honesty, I think it is too early to tell right now” whether political turmoil will undermine what U.S. officials already consider lackluster counterinsurgency efforts by Pakistani forces, the senior administration official said.

U.S. troops currently represent 25,000 of the 41,000 NATO force. While individual battles against the Taliban result in noted body counts of dead Taliban fighters and captured leaders, a former (unnamed) senior U.S. commander in Afganistan makes the key point…these are tactical wins in a strategic war. I suspect that many who might stumble upon this post will point to the tactical wins over the Taliban, and much like “Losing Afghanistan - Redux” will reject this article on its face.  Sadly, a large segment of the “viewing” public only sees the tactical.  A pair of these, simply don’t cut it! Please note that this brillliant photograph is “borrowed” with attribution from here.

Rose-colored glasses in Morningside Park

Another Storm comment: Long ago, I wrote a piece that was much maligned at that time, in which I reported and commented on a report written by Dr. Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Army War College in Carlisle Pa. (on loan from the Air Force’s Air War College in Montgomery, Ala.). At the time (December 2003), Record examined three features of the war on terrorism as then defined and conducted: (1) the administration’s postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war’s political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism–as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda–lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power.

Unlike many who reacted to the Record premises, I was interested in the strategic component of his report, since I believe that all military and diplomatic actions should be analyzed in terms of strategy, tactics and outcomes (I’m a really “fun guy” but that’s what comes from idolizing brilliant thinkers like the recently deceased Peter Drucker).

Dr. Record’s report can be found here: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB207.pdf

With the primary focus of the NATO effort being on holding the major cities, the rural areas have fallen back to the Taliban after troops have redeployed.

President Bush seldom mentions Afghanistan. In White House remarks last month asking Congress for an additional $200 billion for both wars, he noted that “our troops, NATO allies and Afghan forces are making gains against the Taliban,” then offered an extensive recounting of progress in Iraq.

To the extent that the administration has publicly described problems in Afghanistan, it has focused on the reluctance of NATO members to send more troops and the restrictions placed by some on the missions they can undertake. “In Afghanistan, a handful of allies are paying the price and bearing the burdens” for the rest of the 26-nation group, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a NATO meeting last month. “The failure to meet commitments puts the Afghan mission — and with it, the credibility of NATO — at real risk.”

At the same time, our British counterparts are facing conserable consternation over the situation in Afghanistan.

British troops are facing “operational failure” in Afghanistan due to years of chronic Government under-funding, according to former heads of the armed forces.

Generals enter military covenant debate

Key issues facing Britain’s Armed Forces

Frontline: Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan

The lives of hundreds of soldiers could be lost unless the Government starts to fund the military properly, they argue. 

General Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, who served as the Chief of the Defence Staff in 2001, said: “Operational and tactical failure in Afghanistan is now not impossible to believe.”

The easiest thing in the World is to only see what you want to see. If that’s the choice, then the question must always be whether you see reality or a mirage. I hope that those who find their way to this article maintain an open mind and find this selection worth their time.

Please see Real Clear Politics (vote)

Jeffrey Record, Kandahar, Karen DeYoung, Karzai, National Security Council, Taliban resurgence, U.S. Notes Limited Progress in Afghan War, unfinished war, Washington Post