The Questions All Americans Should ask About Afghanistan

If there's one thing that the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll tells us, it's that when the President outlines a good policy and speaks directly to the American people about it, he can connect. So, it's not a surprise that after a summer where the President was pretty quiet on health care, September has seen his numbers on that issue begin to turn around. Yet, as casualties increase in Afghanistan, while the country teeters on the brink, public opinion has swung clearly against the war in the region, as the President has spent most of his time talking about domestic priorities.

The administration continues to say, and I continue to believe, that Afghanistan/Pakistan is not a war of choice. But, how we continue to wage it is a series of choices. And, on these choices, the President must make some relatively quick decisions, and make his case to the American people.

So, what are those questions that the President needs to answer, and take to the American people?

1) What is the military objective in Afghanistan? The first order of business is to define who we're fighting exactly? Is it al Qaeda, as the President said before, or has the lack of cooperation from elements of the Taliban made them the enemy too? There is, of course, the argument that the Taliban retaking the country could mean a safe haven for al Qaeda.

The second thing to decide is what is the mission? If the mission is counter-terrorism, then it means a much smaller military footprint, and a greater reliance on high-tech weaponry, and a lower focus on securing the population. That might not actually need more troops to be achieved, but actually reduce the number of NATO and American troops serving there. If the President wants a stronger counter-insurgency operation, however, it means more focus on securing the population and using that as leverage with local leaders to not support the Taliban. That does take more troops.

Also a few Democrats in Congress are now only supporting an increase of troops in advisory/training roles. Without an increase in combat forces, there can be no real counter-insurgency operation, and no real ability to secure areas. No increase in the amount of trainers will have the Afghan military operational enough in time to fight back the Taliban. So sending guys over in a pure training role will actually increase the risk to embedded trainers.

One final wrinkle is whether there has been any improvement to the complete breakdown in inter-agency coordination since the previous administration. If there's not - if the CIA, military, and state department are all working independently, any serious counter-insurgency strategy cannot work, and certainly not on the backs of our military.

2) How has the Taliban and al Qaeda evolved since 9/11? The second assessment the President has to make is who or what, exactly, is al Qaeda, and how do we fight them? Since 9/11, worldwide, al Qaeda is much more a name attached to ideology, than a group. How much is al Qaeda operating in the region, versus those attached to the ideology. It may be very small, but they also wield a lot of power, still. Also, they're no longer based mainly in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan.

3) Is training the Afghan Army the most important part of any plan? This was the main thrust of what the Bush administration tried to do for years. There are problems here and it will be more challenging than Iraq. There has been no central army in Afghan since the 70's. There is no strong central government today. And, the government can't pay the troops without our financial help. So are we willing to not just train, but pay Afghan forces? Unlike Iraq, Afghanis are not as well educated, nor as physically healthy - making building an Afghan Army a million times more difficult than training an Iraqi Army (and we know how hard that was). We have made some strides, but slow ones. The President has to decide and explain if a stable Afghan force is a realistic end-state without a very, very long commitment. If this becomes the central part of the American exit strategy it sound eerily similar the George W. Bush, " When they stand up, we will stand down" Iraq strategy.
4) Is there enough support in the US to sustain a counter-insurgency strategy? Although 50 percent of Americans are against sending more troops, the White House has been focused on health care and energy and has not rallied public support for operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Public support is needed to sustain operations. We've already seen opinion shift in Congress, mirroring the polls. The President must make his case and then decide if public opinion will hold long enough see this through.

5) What to do about poppies? This is little talked about, but very important. The growth of poppies is really an economic staple for many. Should we destroy the poppies? Yes they fuel the insurgency. But it hurts us more if we destroy them and their value to the farmer cannot be fully replaced. This is very hard to achieve unless you can provide security in the region. But, as long as Afghanis feel that we're hurting their ability to make money, we only create more potential enemies for al Qaeda and others to recruit.

6) How popular are NATO Forces in Afghanistan? The most important question. Any strategy needs support. Indications are that NATO forces are much more popular in Afghanistan than we ever were in Iraq, and NATO troops enjoy more support with Afghanis then they do in current US polls. That seems to be more of the case where we've secured the area - Afghanis who feel we're making them safe see us better. However, this needs to be absolutely clear and quantified.

7) How popular are the Taliban? The flip-side of the most important argument. We need a solid assessment of the support the Taliban has, and why. Before deciding on a mission, and how many more troops to send or not send, we need an honest assessment of whether the Taliban are gaining some popularity as a counter-weight to Karzai. In some areas, especially in the south, they are seeing some gains in support, which they can parlay into having a real base to operate out of as they try to retake the country. That, as much as anything, will largely determine what we can and can't achieve.

8) Is this still the central front on the war on terror? In 2001, and years after, it clearly was. And it still very much is an important area. But is terror really contained to the AfPak area, or, has that become more of a piece of a larger puzzle that includes many African nations and others in the Middle East? If it has, then that's a pretty strong argument against more troops for Afghanistan, because you may need them for counter-terror operations elsewhere.

The President needs to adopt some urgency in answering these questions, and pushing his strategy. Not just because our troops and commanders on the ground need a clear mission, but because the ability to implement this plan, and get what he needs out of Congress to make it happen very much relies on where public opinion is. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be internal debate and discussion within the White House from all sides, but that can't be allowed to drag on too long.

In the end, this all rests in the President's hands. If there's another lesson he can take from the health care debate, it is that it's never too soon to take control by making some decisions and using the Bully Pulpit to personally make his case.

Crossposted at VetVoice.com

 

Follow Jon Soltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jonsoltz

Comments

[DRaymond]

What afghanistan needs is a functioning government that protects and serves its people. They see the Karzai government as the ones that abuse them drugin the day and the Taliban as the ones that abuse them during the night.

Opium does not just provide revenue for the taliban, it provides control. The taliban provide planting loans which must be paid from the opium crop at the end. If the farmer has hsi crop destroyed then he is further in debt and the only hope to get out of it is more opium.

What the US should do is buy the whole crop at the farm gate and provide a planting loan for any crop OTHER than opium.

[StevieRae]

What worries me also is how Republicans like McCain and other party leaders are pushing Obama to listen to his generals "on the ground."

If so many in the party are focused on working to make Obama fail, how much of their pushing Obama is related to that agenda vs what's best for the US????

[algomajoker]

I'm not convinced that Americans as a whole are asking any questions at all, Jon. Your list implies that Americans think about this in detail, let alone even a little bit.

[monty7]

Only one important question: How many barrels of oil is a d.e.ad tw.oop worth?

[Marcospinelli]

This is a distraction device from health care reform.

[RexOzone]

Let's do in Afghanistan what we didn't do in Viet Nam. Offer the people a stake in their own life (infrastructure improvement, capitol rebuilding, small business establishment) and get the hell out before we have to chopper our people off the roof of the embassy. Leaving Afghanistan to Afghans is necessary if we have no other agenda. Most of these people didn't care on jot about the US before all this began.
NBC's Richard Eagan (?) falsely labeled the Taliban as being like Al Quaeda, "They're pretty much a wash" he said. With this view we may never win anything and it is the Afghanistan people, of course who lose as does our brave men and women sacrificed to this folly. The war of terrorism continues as we alienate the people we are supposedly trying to save.
Stop the madness and look not to a military resolution. We have been the enemy as much as the Taliban as far as the people who are now being bombed by drones are concerned. It's hard to win the hearts and minds when the bodies are being destroyed.
And leave them their poppies, it's the very least we can do to allow them some comfort after an eight year onslaught, beats our pharmaceutical coverage.
We do not have the secret to democratic utopia and many do not even want it anyway. Just ask the Republican Guard here.

[Cantab81]

Well said. If we defeat alQaida in Afghanastan will they recenterin other safe havens ( Somalia, Nigeria, Indonesia). Why did we go to war with the Taliban from the start and side with the Northern alliance in what was a civil war; after all the Taliban( brutal as it is) tried to give us UBL when in the Sudan( WJC refused to deal with them due to human rights issues).

[terramartom]

This for profit war is a complete failure for America, taking lives and economic resources.
This Bush/ Cheney war was designed to make money for them and their greedy partners in crime, Wall St., Banking cartels, and the Military Industrial Complex that is already planning the next war in Africa!

There is no winning.
There is only the USA leaving having wasted $$ Trillions, killed 100,000's, and in the end, simply let Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda walk in to Pakistan.

Bush was happy to send your kid to their death in Afghanistan, or Iraq or anywhere, because his own kids are safe and will be very rich from the blood of your children.

War is extremely profitable business, and there is nothing like it.
False religion and false Patriotism can get a war going over words!

http://www.richmonk31.blogspot.com

[perrylove]

Bravo! Bravo!
Perpetual war is killing the middle class. The elite are spending munitions and military hardware, killing civilians in the process, which creates more terrorists and enemies of the US, and then taxing us to replenish the bombs. Sick.
I think Obama is STILL trying to be partisan and gain republican approval by playing to their definition of "tough on terror". National Security Advisor Marine General James Jones states there are less than 100 al-queda operatives in Afghanistan so we should get out now.
He needs to save this country by brining the troops and money home. We should be exporting human services, food and medicine. This will protect our country from extremists much more than "oops, sorry we bombed your wedding, we were looking for the bad guys".

[politicscorner]

The US government can follow several different options. But overarching all of the points in this article are the questions, What is the overall objective for following each option and why is this important in terms of the security of the US? Relatedly, it is important to ask, what are the likely consequences for our security here if the government follows the different policy options? Granted, these are complicated questions to answer, but we need detailed explanations and not ideological platitudes to be able to evaluate the possibilities.

[forty8r]

What ever happened to that Northen Alliance who were the sworn enemies of the Taliban???

More than likely it was a conglomeration of war lords looking for a US handout of weapons to increase their spheres of influence.

[Cantab81]

Masood was killed 2 days before the trade center attack; Dostum and Atta defeated the Taliban in Northern Afhanastan ; Dostum was exilled to Uzbekistan ,and only just returned, he is being invetigated by our New administration for war crimes and mass murders of Taliban Mujahedan.

[jstev56]

Why is the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization fighting a counter-insurgency campaign in south asia?

[discussant]

"5) What to do about poppies? This is little talked about, but very important. The growth of poppies is really an economic staple for many. Should we destroy the poppies? Yes they fuel the insurgency. But it hurts us more if we destroy them and their value to the farmer cannot be fully replaced. This is very hard to achieve unless you can provide security in the region. But, as long as Afghanis feel that we're hurting their ability to make money, we only create more potential enemies for al Qaeda and others to recruit"
The veracity of the avove pointis in fact questionable.
Review intently any Islamic fundamntalist construct-- there are some good points which we do not want to discuss, as if we will suddenly beome unpatriotic or traitors. Taliban, or Al Qaeda 's popularity in their followers is the fanatic belief that drug cultivation is bad and they are the martyrs, and it's they who had removed the drug cultivation and its export, until Karzai government was installed. The latter brought the poppies back happily to have healthy state revenue to fight insurgency, but we support him.
It's the absolute principle of truth that will finally prevail. Terrorism, counter-terrorism or Karzai with a dubious agenda will not prevail.
I only pray that we are in the "righteous path" as torch bearers for freedom and as liberators, as we profess. And our action must be above reproach to have worldwide support!

[RomeoMD25]

i voted for Obama, but I have become very disillusioned. He doesn't seem to be able to accomplish anything.
It seems that he will be a very weak one term President. He seems to be more interested in giving speeches and looking good than actually doing anything.

[mudshark12]

After 8 years with NO results other than killing a few more terrorists, I think we ought to pack up and leave Afghanistan while we can. There too many domestic issues at home and besides that the war(s) are "bleeding us dry" which is EXACTLY what Osama wanted. America needs to lay back in the weeds and wait for a good chance too kill that @#%^&.

[Balzac]

Mr Soltz, those are good questions.

I say the Taliban is not the enemy and the criteria for who is the enemy has been defined so broadly, it's self-defeating.

I say the United States should buy the whole Opium crop and sell it to drug companies as raw material to be made available as generic label pain medication. Our troops are going to need some of that.

First quell the domestic insurgency of Republicans who are trying to undermine the economy, national security and people's health.

Then make decisive choices in Afghanistan. Reduce the foot-print, force Karzai to negotiate with an organized Taliban leadership for a de-escalation of the conflict.