Avoiding Defeat in Afghanistan

The National logo, global utilities

-->21 °C FAQ Bookmark this page Sign In Register

Primary navigation

skip to main content Home UAE World Business Opinion Sport Arts Life The Review Magazine Weekender Multimedia Comment Editorials Cartoon Letters Arabic news digest Your View

main content

Comment

Global briefing

Week in review

While Benjamin Netanyahu has persuaded Labour to join his right-wing coalition and promises that Israel's next government will be a 'partner for peace', hostility towards Israel's Palestinian citizens is on the rise. Today's paper

Read the newspaper as it was printed

You make the news

Send us your stories and pictures

Your View e-polls e-paper Subscription Weather RSS Feeds content = document.getElementById("pollcontainer").innerHTML; myReg=/Sorry/; myAr=myReg.exec(content); if (myAr == "Sorry") { // document.getElementById("pollcontainer").style.height="0"; document.getElementById("pollcontainer").style.display="none"; } document.write(''); From Obama, a guide for avoiding defeat in Afghanistan

Tony Karon

Last Updated: March 28. 2009 11:09PM UAE / March 28. 2009 7:09PM GMT

The keyword of US President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan plan didn't make it into the text of the speech in which he announced it on Friday. That would be “exit strategy”. This was how Obama, in a TV interview a week earlier, had defined his administration's goal in rethinking Washington's approach to Afghanistan and western Pakistan. The US is in no position to leave Afghanistan any time soon, but nor is it likely in the same time frame to achieve its original objective of stabilising a pro-western democratic government. Obama may be reluctant to face the US electorate three years from now with an open-ended commitment of blood and treasure to Afghanistan, but his immediate problem is not that progress there is slow; it's that the situation is quickly deteriorating.

The new plan, then, is less a blueprint for victory than it is a guide for avoiding defeat. Its priority is to halt the trend that puts the Taliban and its allies in the ascendancy, with Nato forces losing ground – but at the same time sets it realistic objectives. That's why Obama downsized the US goal of turning Afghanistan into a self-sustaining democracy; instead he gave the mission a “clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qa'eda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future”.

With a new Taliban offensive expected to begin shortly, the priority mission of the 17,000 new combat troops Obama ordered up last month to reinforce the 38,000 American soldiers already there will be to shore up the approaches to Kabul and reinforce some key points further south. And while Obama has pledged 4,000 more soldiers to train Afghan forces to eventually take over security duties from the US, many of those trainers may find themselves deployed to mentor the militia forces of local warlords that the US hopes can be turned against the Taliban through a combination of force and offers of training, arms and cash.

document.write('');

At the same time, Obama may have begun opening the way to some form of accommodation with the Taliban by advocating a strategy of “peeling off” what the American term “reconcilable Taliban” from what Obama has said was an “uncompromising core” that would have to be defeated militarily. That distinction may yet become blurred in the reality of an exceedingly difficult war. But it's conventional wisdom in Washington that the US can't engage the Taliban from a position of weakness. Political solutions to armed conflicts typically become possible only when each side has recognised that it cannot destroy the other on the battlefield. Right now, however, the Taliban has reason to believe that its guerrilla war will eventually drive Nato forces from their country. Defeating the Taliban may be a bridge too far but fighting them to a draw in order to create conditions in which many of them may be willing to compromise could be a key component of an exit strategy.

Obama's strategy also places far greater emphasis on co-ordinating with Afghanistan's neighbours, including Iran, and with creating structures of governance in Afghanistan that can overcome much of the population's alienation from the current regime of President Hamid Karzai – although Karzai has given notice that he'll resist any attempts to dilute his power.The Obama plan recognises that Afghanistan's fate will be substantially decided in Pakistan, and also that Pakistan's rulers will not voluntarily help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just last week, The New York Times reported on extensive and ongoing direct support by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) for Taliban operations inside Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told CNN that “the strategic approach with the ISI must change and their support ... for militants, actually on both borders, has to fundamentally shift”.

In contrast to its pred

main content

Comment

Week in review

Read the newspaper as it was printed

Send us your stories and pictures

document.write(''); From Obama, a guide for avoiding defeat in Afghanistan

Tony Karon

Last Updated: March 28. 2009 11:09PM UAE / March 28. 2009 7:09PM GMT

The keyword of US President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan plan didn't make it into the text of the speech in which he announced it on Friday. That would be “exit strategy”. This was how Obama, in a TV interview a week earlier, had defined his administration's goal in rethinking Washington's approach to Afghanistan and western Pakistan. The US is in no position to leave Afghanistan any time soon, but nor is it likely in the same time frame to achieve its original objective of stabilising a pro-western democratic government. Obama may be reluctant to face the US electorate three years from now with an open-ended commitment of blood and treasure to Afghanistan, but his immediate problem is not that progress there is slow; it's that the situation is quickly deteriorating.

The new plan, then, is less a blueprint for victory than it is a guide for avoiding defeat. Its priority is to halt the trend that puts the Taliban and its allies in the ascendancy, with Nato forces losing ground – but at the same time sets it realistic objectives. That's why Obama downsized the US goal of turning Afghanistan into a self-sustaining democracy; instead he gave the mission a “clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qa'eda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future”.

With a new Taliban offensive expected to begin shortly, the priority mission of the 17,000 new combat troops Obama ordered up last month to reinforce the 38,000 American soldiers already there will be to shore up the approaches to Kabul and reinforce some key points further south. And while Obama has pledged 4,000 more soldiers to train Afghan forces to eventually take over security duties from the US, many of those trainers may find themselves deployed to mentor the militia forces of local warlords that the US hopes can be turned against the Taliban through a combination of force and offers of training, arms and cash.

document.write('');

At the same time, Obama may have begun opening the way to some form of accommodation with the Taliban by advocating a strategy of “peeling off” what the American term “reconcilable Taliban” from what Obama has said was an “uncompromising core” that would have to be defeated militarily. That distinction may yet become blurred in the reality of an exceedingly difficult war. But it's conventional wisdom in Washington that the US can't engage the Taliban from a position of weakness. Political solutions to armed conflicts typically become possible only when each side has recognised that it cannot destroy the other on the battlefield. Right now, however, the Taliban has reason to believe that its guerrilla war will eventually drive Nato forces from their country. Defeating the Taliban may be a bridge too far but fighting them to a draw in order to create conditions in which many of them may be willing to compromise could be a key component of an exit strategy.

Obama's strategy also places far greater emphasis on co-ordinating with Afghanistan's neighbours, including Iran, and with creating structures of governance in Afghanistan that can overcome much of the population's alienation from the current regime of President Hamid Karzai – although Karzai has given notice that he'll resist any attempts to dilute his power.The Obama plan recognises that Afghanistan's fate will be substantially decided in Pakistan, and also that Pakistan's rulers will not voluntarily help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just last week, The New York Times reported on extensive and ongoing direct support by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) for Taliban operations inside Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told CNN that “the strategic approach with the ISI must change and their support ... for militants, actually on both borders, has to fundamentally shift”.

In contrast to its predecessor, the new US administration will make military aid to Pakistan conditional upon the Pakistani military complying with US directives to direct its energies at eradicating al Qa'eda and Taliban sanctuaries on its territory. And the US will direct massive amounts of aid over the next five years to strengthening civilian institutions in Pakistan.But where Washington imagines it can reorient Pakistan's military establishment to fight the Taliban rather than prepare for war with India, the Pakistani military clearly sees things differently. The generals in Rawalpindi are concerned about the Taliban only when it directly challenges state authority on Pakistani soil. Even in the face of sustained US pressure, Pakistan has made clear that it has no intention of fighting Taliban elements whose operational focus is on fighting Nato in Afghanistan. The Pakistani Army has made peace agreements with a number of Pakistan-based Taliban groups that continue to wage war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan originally installed the Taliban in power in Afghanistan to ensure that its western flank was guarded by a friendly regime, rather than in the hands of the current Indian-backed government. After the September 11 attacks, the then president Pervez Musharraf tried, ultimately in vain, to convince the US to adopt a strategy of trying to detach the Taliban from al Qa'eda, and persuading them to expel Osama bin Laden.

But Pakistan's generals are arguably taking a long view, assuming that the US and its allies will eventually tire of their entanglement in the Hindu Kush, and when they do, Pakistan will be in a position to restore at least some of the power of its erstwhile proxies next door – and serve as the guarantor of an understanding that achieves Obama's prime objective of denying al Qa'eda a base. Perhaps the most telling line in The New York Times's expose was the revelation that: “In a sign of just how resigned western officials are to the ties [between the ISI and the Taliban], the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there.”

So, while Washington hopes to change Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban, Pakistan may be aiming ultimately to persuade Washington of the utility of that relationship. After all, Pakistan will be a player in Afghanistan long after America departs, and as far as it's concerned, the Taliban will be, too.Tony Karon is a New York-based editor who blogs at Rootless Cosmopolitan, www.tonykaron.com

Send to friend Print var addthis_pub="noahkhan"; var addthis_brand = "The National"; var addthis_logo = "http://www.thenational.ae/images/the_national_logo.gif"; var addthis_logo_color = "3261A5"; Bookmark & Share See also Obama's Istanbul visit could 'help reduce tensions' between cultures divides Other Opinion stories Hated by Kuwaitis, but not by other Arabs The first steps towards victory in Afghanistan No brainer Put surfers to work saving lives of non-swimmers Schools tested on their merits Mandatory military service for our defence and future document.write(''); Top stories Investors take heart from Dubai court ruling Chechen man killed in Dubai Coldplay frontman Martin scoffs at rain Schools fear exodus of pupils as jobs slide Concessions bring cheer amid burden Better by design On top of the world Your View How has the weather affected you?How do you feel about tuition increases being dependent on school performance? What do you think Abu Dhabi's taxi inspectors need to focus on? What do you think about the new self-cleaning toilets? Do you think it is money well spent? What can be done to use water more efficiently? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Crowd delights in Bocelli charm How it happened: Dubai World Cup Investors take heart from Dubai court ruling N Dakota braces for 'biggest flood ever' Purification rites Met Office warns of storms and flash floods Earth Hour 2009 underway UAE hopes ended in North Korea Crowds gather for Dubai World Cup Lufthansa sees UAE 'imbalance' Delays prompt Nakheel investors to act Worried about apartheid? Too late, Mr Olmert, it's already here Abu Dhabi faces water crisis Dh5bn plan for Khalifa City A approved Storms batter UAE and more on way His masterful voice Investor groups gaining in power Bringing water to Tiger's golf oasis Developer must repay Dh7.4m Purification rites var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home News B

The keyword of US President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan plan didn't make it into the text of the speech in which he announced it on Friday. That would be “exit strategy”. This was how Obama, in a TV interview a week earlier, had defined his administration's goal in rethinking Washington's approach to Afghanistan and western Pakistan. The US is in no position to leave Afghanistan any time soon, but nor is it likely in the same time frame to achieve its original objective of stabilising a pro-western democratic government. Obama may be reluctant to face the US electorate three years from now with an open-ended commitment of blood and treasure to Afghanistan, but his immediate problem is not that progress there is slow; it's that the situation is quickly deteriorating.

The new plan, then, is less a blueprint for victory than it is a guide for avoiding defeat. Its priority is to halt the trend that puts the Taliban and its allies in the ascendancy, with Nato forces losing ground – but at the same time sets it realistic objectives. That's why Obama downsized the US goal of turning Afghanistan into a self-sustaining democracy; instead he gave the mission a “clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qa'eda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future”.

With a new Taliban offensive expected to begin shortly, the priority mission of the 17,000 new combat troops Obama ordered up last month to reinforce the 38,000 American soldiers already there will be to shore up the approaches to Kabul and reinforce some key points further south. And while Obama has pledged 4,000 more soldiers to train Afghan forces to eventually take over security duties from the US, many of those trainers may find themselves deployed to mentor the militia forces of local warlords that the US hopes can be turned against the Taliban through a combination of force and offers of training, arms and cash.

At the same time, Obama may have begun opening the way to some form of accommodation with the Taliban by advocating a strategy of “peeling off” what the American term “reconcilable Taliban” from what Obama has said was an “uncompromising core” that would have to be defeated militarily. That distinction may yet become blurred in the reality of an exceedingly difficult war. But it's conventional wisdom in Washington that the US can't engage the Taliban from a position of weakness. Political solutions to armed conflicts typically become possible only when each side has recognised that it cannot destroy the other on the battlefield. Right now, however, the Taliban has reason to believe that its guerrilla war will eventually drive Nato forces from their country. Defeating the Taliban may be a bridge too far but fighting them to a draw in order to create conditions in which many of them may be willing to compromise could be a key component of an exit strategy.

Obama's strategy also places far greater emphasis on co-ordinating with Afghanistan's neighbours, including Iran, and with creating structures of governance in Afghanistan that can overcome much of the population's alienation from the current regime of President Hamid Karzai – although Karzai has given notice that he'll resist any attempts to dilute his power.The Obama plan recognises that Afghanistan's fate will be substantially decided in Pakistan, and also that Pakistan's rulers will not voluntarily help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just last week, The New York Times reported on extensive and ongoing direct support by Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) for Taliban operations inside Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told CNN that “the strategic approach with the ISI must change and their support ... for militants, actually on both borders, has to fundamentally shift”.

In contrast to its predecessor, the new US administration will make military aid to Pakistan conditional upon the Pakistani military complying with US directives to direct its energies at eradicating al Qa'eda and Taliban sanctuaries on its territory. And the US will direct massive amounts of aid over the next five years to strengthening civilian institutions in Pakistan.But where Washington imagines it can reorient Pakistan's military establishment to fight the Taliban rather than prepare for war with India, the Pakistani military clearly sees things differently. The generals in Rawalpindi are concerned about the Taliban only when it directly challenges state authority on Pakistani soil. Even in the face of sustained US pressure, Pakistan has made clear that it has no intention of fighting Taliban elements whose operational focus is on fighting Nato in Afghanistan. The Pakistani Army has made peace agreements with a number of Pakistan-based Taliban groups that continue to wage war in Afghanistan.

Pakistan originally installed the Taliban in power in Afghanistan to ensure that its western flank was guarded by a friendly regime, rather than in the hands of the current Indian-backed government. After the September 11 attacks, the then president Pervez Musharraf tried, ultimately in vain, to convince the US to adopt a strategy of trying to detach the Taliban from al Qa'eda, and persuading them to expel Osama bin Laden.

But Pakistan's generals are arguably taking a long view, assuming that the US and its allies will eventually tire of their entanglement in the Hindu Kush, and when they do, Pakistan will be in a position to restore at least some of the power of its erstwhile proxies next door – and serve as the guarantor of an understanding that achieves Obama's prime objective of denying al Qa'eda a base. Perhaps the most telling line in The New York Times's expose was the revelation that: “In a sign of just how resigned western officials are to the ties [between the ISI and the Taliban], the British government has sent several dispatches to Islamabad in recent months asking that the ISI use its strategy meetings with the Taliban to persuade its commanders to scale back violence in Afghanistan before the August presidential election there.”

So, while Washington hopes to change Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban, Pakistan may be aiming ultimately to persuade Washington of the utility of that relationship. After all, Pakistan will be a player in Afghanistan long after America departs, and as far as it's concerned, the Taliban will be, too.Tony Karon is a New York-based editor who blogs at Rootless Cosmopolitan, www.tonykaron.com

Top stories Investors take heart from Dubai court ruling Chechen man killed in Dubai Coldplay frontman Martin scoffs at rain Schools fear exodus of pupils as jobs slide Concessions bring cheer amid burden Better by design On top of the world Your View How has the weather affected you?How do you feel about tuition increases being dependent on school performance? What do you think Abu Dhabi's taxi inspectors need to focus on? What do you think about the new self-cleaning toilets? Do you think it is money well spent? What can be done to use water more efficiently? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Crowd delights in Bocelli charm How it happened: Dubai World Cup Investors take heart from Dubai court ruling N Dakota braces for 'biggest flood ever' Purification rites Met Office warns of storms and flash floods Earth Hour 2009 underway UAE hopes ended in North Korea Crowds gather for Dubai World Cup Lufthansa sees UAE 'imbalance' Delays prompt Nakheel investors to act Worried about apartheid? Too late, Mr Olmert, it's already here Abu Dhabi faces water crisis Dh5bn plan for Khalifa City A approved Storms batter UAE and more on way His masterful voice Investor groups gaining in power Bringing water to Tiger's golf oasis Developer must repay Dh7.4m Purification rites var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home News Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map

© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company FZLLC.

var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4452332-2"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); var doLoad = true; if (doLoad) { updatePollMini(); } s.Account="saxotechthenational" s.cookieDomainPeriods="2" s.pageName="Opinion,From Obama a guide for avoiding defeat in Afghanistan:20090329:74553552" s.server="S260608AT1VW921" s.channel="Opinion" /* Traffic Variables */ s.prop1="Story" /* E-commerce Variables */ /* Hierarchy Variables */ s.hier1="Opinion,From Obama a guide for avoiding defeat in Afghanistan:20090329:74553552" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t(); if(s_code)document.write(s_code)Read Full Article »