Petraeus Not 'Sure' Of U.S. Victory In Afghanistan By 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The American commanding general in Afghanistan says he is not "sure" of victory by 2014.

Army Gen. David Petraeus told ABC News in an interview that even after nine years of war, it would be dishonest for him to promise that achievement.

"I think-no commander ever is going to come out and say, 'I'm confident that we can do this.' I think that you say that you assess that this is-- you believe this is, you know, a reasonable prospect and knowing how important it is-- that we have to do everything we can to increase the chances of that prospect. But again, I don't think there are any sure things in this kind of endeavor. And I wouldn't be honest with you and with the viewers if I didn't convey that."

The general told ABC News that he was surprised by President Hamid Karzai's recent criticism of U.S. military operations in his country, but denies he considered resigning.

Karzai's demand that the U.S. reduce the visibility and intensity of its military operations "was a surprise." Karzai had told The Washington Post in a mid-November interview that it was time to reduce "the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life."

Petraeus told interviewer George Stephanopoulos that he discussed Karzai's remarks with him a couple days after the interview and said Karzai responded that the remarks were a reiteration of statements he's made previously. Petraeus said he was reassured that he could continue to work with Karzai.

Karzai particularly criticized the U.S. military's night raids, saying they fuel anti-American sentiment and strengthen the Taliban's hand.

Petraeus said in the ABC interview "the Taliban is resilient," and said this is why keeping it from overrunning the country has such a high priority.

Asked if the United States is losing the battle for the hearts of the Afghan people, Petreaus said it is important to "provide the message to the Afghan people about why we're here."

Petreaus was also asked about a letter in which the Taliban claims to control over 50 percent of Afghanistan.

"Well, my response to them would be, 'If you control so much of Afghanistan, w hy are all of your senior leaders outside the country and never set food inside the country, ' " he said.

"We believe that we have arrested the momentum that the Taliban achieved in recent years in many areas of the country," the general said, "not all, but that we have reversed it in some important areas, including right here, in Kabul, which is home to one-sixth or one-fifth of the country."

Comments

[bluecollaramerican]

07:19 AM on 12/16/2010

This guy's role model is General William Westmoreland. What else do you expect from him?

[Cherokee5]

08:04 PM on 12/15/2010

He is a repub.....what can you expect, he wants a war to go forever.
They live for Wars, so sad!

[ThackerAgency]

12:57 AM on 12/07/2010

This is an incredible statement. How would you like to lay down your life for someone who says 'we might not win'. This is complete opposite of Baghdad Bob who was losing while declaring victory. Just another example of why we need to come home from Af'/Pak. There is nothing for us to win there. Eliminate the threat by AQ with travel restrictions. If you go there, you can't come to America. You can go anywhere else, but you can't come here. The most effective fence in history.

[Amryxx]

04:56 PM on 12/06/2010

Strange.

I could've swore that I've read several articles a few months back saying, "we're nearly winning" and "the Taliban is on its last throes".

[groland]

04:38 PM on 12/06/2010

The army has never met a war that it does not think it can win! We are by nature optimists, not realists.

[Yorksgal]

02:22 PM on 12/06/2010

Well duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[tomtall]

02:00 PM on 12/06/2010

End the TSA and bring the troops home to do the work the TSA does.....l­ike all the other civilized countries of the world do.....sav­e trillions in no time!!!!

[tomtall]

02:00 PM on 12/06/2010

End the TSA and bring the troops home to do the work the TSA does.....like all the other civilized countries of the world do.....save trillions in no time!!!!

[geojus1]

01:55 PM on 12/06/2010

Bootcamp lasts 13 weeks; how is it that we are still doing the majority of the fighting 9+ years into this war? Do we need to hire better trainers???

[chaiwallah]

01:51 PM on 12/06/2010

Afghanistan population: 28 million +. Do you think that you can win the hearts and minds of all those people. Forget it and go home.

[tomtall]

01:44 PM on 12/06/2010

There won't be a victory in 2011,2012,2013,2014, or any other 20??(Viet Nam)....just like there won't be any victories in the war on drugs either.....so just sit back and enjoy it....it's called the Forever War...ain't it fun!

[Red45]

01:42 PM on 12/06/2010

How are those poor defense contractors (e.g., halliburton) going to continue to enrich themselves if we aren't in some war or wars? They aren't. And the general has just as much interest in continuing war as the defense contractors do. Without a war, they lose their otherwise secure jobs and the stream of money supporting them might dry up. He will stretch it out as long as he can with the support of the MIC.

[Beatriz09]

01:30 PM on 12/06/2010

Thanks for being honest!

Of course war (nor politics ...) isn't a 'hard science'. That's why it's so absurd to say that generals or politicians "promised" certain results at certain precise moments. All they can do is give their analysis of the situation, their idea of the ultimate goal, and the strategy they think should help us move into the direction of that goal.

The reason why I still support Obama and Petraeus in this attempt to end the war, is because I don't see any alternative Those who think we should leave without ending it responsibly, don't have ANY concrete idea about HOW to do that and WHY the outcome would be better than to try to finally start finishing the job. 

It's not enough to say that you oppose any kind of war. As a progressive, I oppose wars in general too, but this time the Dems inherited a situation where that's NOT the choice to make, as there's been a US war in Afghanistan for almost a decade now. In that case the question is HOW to end it. You cannot simply "decide" to end a war, you can only unilaterally decide to begin a war.

[groland]

05:08 PM on 12/06/2010

How do you end it responsibly? Easy, pack up and go home. Is it any more irresponsible to stay and try to bend the people to do our bidding? Will the insurgents disappear, never to return, if we "win". No they will wait us out and it makes no difference whether we stay for one more week or 10 years.

[Beatriz09]

08:47 PM on 12/06/2010

With all respect, imo the idea you're proposing is completely based on a myth.
 
First, we aren't trying to "bend the people to do our bidding", we are fighting WITH the Afghans against a VERY small minority, made up of religious extremists who are partially Afghan Pashtuns, partially Pakistani Pashtuns, Arabs, Tchetchens etc.
 
This group is almost a US creation, just like Al Qaida, as we've funded and encouraged those fundamentalist groups (EVEN when the population didn't want them) during our Cold war against the USSR (war that was actually rather 'hot', for the different people living on Afghan soil; 'cold' was how it felt from our and the Russians' perspective ...).
 
After we toppled a USSR puppet regime (installed after the Soviet troops left Afghanistan), we simply allowed the Taliban to start a civil war and conquer the entire country, MILITARILY, and again, against the will of more than 90% of the tribal leaders.
 
When in the end the Taliban and AQ turned against us, and started to plot attacks on Afghan soil, we decided to destroy the Taliban government. Here too, more than 90% of the tribal leaders actually AGREED, and just like before were willing to fight with us and against the Taliban.
 
The problem is that during the Bush war, only the capital was more or less protected, and the idea was to stay there indefinitely, chasing occasionally Taliban militants or AQ extremists when they would come too close to the capital or start being dangerous. So the Taliban were able to get a lot of momentum and reconquer important parts of the country.
 
Today the goal is not to make insurgents "disappear" (that was Bush's 'strategy'), the idea is to show them such a military overweight, while at the same time protecting civilians much better than the Taliban do, in order to convince them to continue their fight with political means only, instead of using violence.
 
And remember, the Taliban violence is not primarily directed against US, but against 90% of the Afghan people who DON't want a Taliban dictatorship again.
 

[Beatriz09]

08:47 PM on 12/06/2010

 
So once we can take control of the streets again, and guarantee the Afghan people a minimal security, we'll have succeeded the first important step in this 'war'. At the same time, we're training Afghan security people, and six months from now the first 2-3,000 Afghan soldiers should be able to replace US or NATO soldiers. By 2014, all US and NATO combat troops should have been replaced (just as is the case in Iraq today).
 
That won't mean that there won't be any violence anymore, but it will be much less than today. And most of all, the Taliban won't have a monopoly in Kabul, so IF Al Qaida wants to return on Afghan soil, there will always be enough anti-Taliban Afghans having political power and who want to collaborate with the international community to get rid of them.

[Eversti L in Afghanistan]

01:25 PM on 12/06/2010

Best recent analysis on the subject of Afghanistan and military leadership.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40147

[John Baughman]

01:21 PM on 12/06/2010

Not sure of victory? Has victory been defined? Not really?
What does it matter what anyone says if they include victory with it?

[Beatriz09]

01:42 PM on 12/06/2010

Bush never defined victory in Afghanistan. Defining it was one of Obama's first big decisions.

The goal is to install a central government in the entire country. Is called "central government" every government that the Afghans elect, even if elections are corrupt and the government too (Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, so it's 'normal' that corruption is very high too), and that doesn't contain parties nor is dominated by one party that uses violence against other parties (other Afghan political parties, but also the international community as potential target for terrorist attacks).

Once the security forces of that government have control over the entire country, all American and NATO soldiers will be gone. That's "victory".

The way to get there is first to break the Taliban's momentum, so that they understand that they won't have the chance to militarily reconquer the country anytime soon, and then to train the Afghan security forces so that they can gradually take over (as has been the case in Iraq).

The first ones are supposed to be able to take over in July 2011. That when the first US troops are supposed to withdraw. Most of the 100,000 US troops in the country will gradually come home between July 2011 and 2014 (= over a period of 2,5 years).

But these are estimations of what will probably be possible, not well-established certainties. So things may evolve faster, or (more likely) slower. 

In the worst case, COIN doesn't really improve things or even causes a deterioration of the situation on the ground. To obtain 'victory' in that case will mean to rethink the entire strategy and find something new ... .