Afghanistan is in Peril

Today's story in the Los Angeles Times drives home that Afghanistan very much teeters on the brink. The news is sobering. Attacks in Afghanistan's once stable regions to the east have risen by over 40%, and U.S. fatalities have nearly doubled from where they were this time last year. Admiral Mullen struck an alarming tone, commenting on Monday that "Violence is up this year by every single measure we look at," and that "the Taliban, by and large, have moved -- not unlike what happened in Iraq -- to the asymmetric, IED-style warfare." In short, the situation in Afghanistan is dire.

Sadly, Afghanistan's plight is a direct result of the Bush Administration's failure to elevate the strategic importance of the country. Military commanders there are struggling to implement a better strategy, but they have been completely handicapped by the Bush Administration's unwillingness to address any other imperative outside of Iraq:

"Last year's troop buildup in Iraq and the overall strain on U.S. ground forces have made it almost impossible to increase force levels in Afghanistan."

You would think that with Iraq experiencing unprecedented success on the security front that the President would encourage some kind of reconsideration of priorities, but it is clear that Afghanistan is still held hostage by his strategic drift. Such is the myopia that Pentagon strategists can't even plan for the worst contingencies in Afghanistan because the command in Baghdad is in an indefinite holding pattern:

"Still, other officials said that Pentagon planners do not know when they would have additional troops for Afghanistan because the outgoing commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, has not ordered further troop reductions."

I give Admiral Mullen and the Pentagon credit -- they've made unquestionable progress under the worst circumstances. Their proposal to bring U.S. and NATO forces under one command is especially welcome, an idea that progressives at places like CAP and NSN have been pushing for months.

But ultimately, neither Admiral Mullen, nor even Secretary Gates can define success or failure in Afghanistan. That is the job of the President. He has to set the strategy. President Bush has had numerous chances to make Afghanistan a bigger priority. He had every opportunity to deploy more troops to the region, improve strained relations with our NATO allies, or give clarity to an incoherent policy toward the terrorist safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Instead, he has let the situation devolve into the crisis we face today. There is still time, in the waning days of his Presidency, to make the changes that Afghanistan so desperately needs, but today's news makes clear that the country cannot suffer his inattention any longer.

Comments

[David Quigg - Huffpost Blogger]

See David Quigg's Profile

Thank you for this post, Patrick.

I've been reading up extensively on Afghanistan and becoming increasingly concerned. Thank you for doing your part to sound the alarm on this.

MilwaukeeDan (previous commenter) is probably right with "most Americans don't care about Afghanistan." But the notion that "they shouldn't" care, I think, underestimates the difficulty we will face in getting out. As in Iraq, I think we tend to let Bush off the hook when we imagine we can just walk away from these messes.

Thanks again, Patrick.

[MilwaukeeDan]

Mr. Barry, judging by the number of responses(0), most Americans don't care about Afghanistan, and they shouldn't and we should get our military out of there. I believe there are only 60,000 troops there in a country the size of Texas, we need 10 times the troops for some kind of order. We should disband the cold war relic NATO and bring our troops home. Let the Afhgans decide if they want to survive as a people or go as the huns,ect. And don't tell me about terrorist training bases, they can train anywhere.