National Security Online Resource Center

Should we negotiate with the Taliban? President Obama pondered negotiation early last year but instead decided to scale up its efforts against the group. Now Ahmed Rashid, one of the foremost scholar-journalists on the Afghan conflict, has suggested that America may have no other choice. A similar solution is proposed by George Gavrilis in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs where he argues that a less intrusive, less idealistic solution is the way to go in Afghanistan.

The politically accommodating solution is attractive (especially to a transactional president like Obama) but not always successful. Nixon bombed Vietcong to the peace table but South Vietnam fell a couple of years later. This is essentially Obama’ s strategy – weaken the Taliban and then negotiate. Obviously the situation in Afghanistan is different from Vietnam. The country is far more fragmented and a political reconciliation with the Taliban unavoidable given the growing unpopularity of the war. However, we must not forget about the commitment of freedom and democracy we made to the Afghan people. Rights of women are going to roll back and the country is likely to return to an increasingly autocratic/Islamist regime. Even if democracy is maintained, it will be marred by corruption and another civil war started by the loosers is not out of the question.

So whats the solution? You tell me.

It is rather interesting to witness the late arrival of Yemen to the discussion of American security threats. Yemen’s instability has been long known but when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said that he received assistance from an Al-Queda branch in Yemen, the small, poor country showed up on the map. President Obama announced a doubling of U.S. monetary assistance to Yemen. So including this new addition, the United States is now deeply involved in 5 Muslim countries. The other countries include: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. So we must ask at least the question: Where do we draw the line?

American presence is vital to these countries’ security and to ours. I am not questioning that notion and I understand the desire to increase our presence in Yemen. Yet have we fully thought about all of the options. Do we need to increase our presence in any country to solve our problem? I know it won’t make much sense to most to do nothing and to suggest doing less seems blasphemous. It maybe that we need to do more, but are we sure that the answer isn’t doing less?

Other than the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, on security matters, the administration has been largely responsive, rather than proactive. Key initiatives have failed to get anywhere (Israel-Palestine, Guantanamo). So does the United States have a long-term strategic plan for dealing with Middle East rather than being responsive to a series of crises? If so, why hasn’t the President outlined this initiative? With President Bush, at least we were certain of his foreign policy mindset. With President Obama, nothing seems clear.

Since everyone seems to be making a list, we at NSORC figured that we should make a list of our own. So here we go:

5. D.C. Sniper/Anthrax Attacks – Both events followed the attacks of September 11 touched a nerve as people were scared more than ever. Ten people were killed by the sniper with 3 others seriously injured. The anthrax attacks killed 5 while injuring seventeen.

4. Fort Hood Massacre: The killing of 13 people by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is currently being investigated as a possible homegrown terrorist attack. The event raised questions about other possible planned attacks in the U.S.

3. Guantanamo Bay/Abu Ghraib – American treatment of prisoners from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was extremely controversial and subject of much debate in the United States and abroad. These events were a major blow to American image in the Muslim World

2. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Both wars will continue into the next decade but the current decade was marred with stories, discussion and opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. 9/11 – History has yet to make a final judgment on how Sept. 11 2001 changed the paradigm of American National Security. However we can say that no other event in the past decade was more significant in the National Security realm than the terrorist attacks nearly 9 years ago.

Story here

It shouldn’t be if the UK is going to pull out of Afghanistan, but rather “when”. Gordon Brown is facing an election soon (one he and his party could place third in) and the calls are coming from all sides to pull British troops out of the Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how Brown balances domestic and international pressures. My guess is that he will promise some troops, though a small amount, preferably in the always ambivalent “non-combat roles”. Don’t even expect that to last long though. There won’t be any UK troops in Afghanistan by the time the US ’surge’ reaches its end, something that could spell doom for an already failing state.

This is not usually a place where President receives much praise. However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. The President faced a daunting task. After eight years, Afghanistan remains a failed state. The previous administration largely ignored Afghanistan to focus on Iraq. The prospect of success remains dim as the Taliban is resurgent and Al Queda is returning.

The President, who came in on the promise to bring troops home, had to decide to send more. He enacted the same (surge) policy he opposed as Senator, realizing that the President’s job isn’t to pander to his base but to keep the country safe. This decision was probably not easy given the waning popularity of the Afghan war, especially amongst his core group of supporters.

Now Republicans have criticized the 18 month deadline imposed by the President. However, as stated in his speech as well as clarified by Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, the deadline is not a drop dead deadline and a withdrawal will only occur with permitting conditions on the ground.

My larger issue is not with the surge but rather potential of success in Afghanistan. If history has taught a lesson to the great powers on Afghanistan, it is that the country cannot be controlled. Now the U.S. mission is very different from the one pursued by the British and the Soviets but their failures should teach us that this is one country that cannot be brought under centralized control, and an attempt to do so would be quite foolish.

A few thoughts on President Obama’s decision to increase troop-presence in Afghanistan:

1. This was a good, but long-awaited move. Despite his objection to President Bush’s Iraqi surge in 2007, President Obama has recently realized that this strategy was effective and decided to implement it in Afghanistan. This is another case (just like his policy change in Honduras) of his demonstrated ability to realize when he is wrong and (quietly) change course.

2. The fact that he set a date for troop withdrawal in July of 2011 is shortsighted and may have been implemented to appease an increasingly-frustrated liberal anti-war base. We have no way of knowing the environment in Afghanistan in 2011. Therefore, setting a troop withdrawal date is a shortsighted move. While his base may be pleased to hear that the troops will come home, this strategy could well backfire if troops have to stay longer than July 2011.

3. Obama may have made the correct decision (sort of), but the fact that he waited this long, much to the chagrin of the military, was arrogant and irresponsible. President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he should not postpone major military decisions without a good reason. Postponing meeting with his generals indicates that he was unwilling to hear his options, not that he was mulling his options to make an informed decision.

Overall, this could have been done a lot better. But at least he got something right.

Via the Politico:

• 30,000 more troops
• Asks for NATO step-up
• Promises to begin bringing forces back by Summer 2011.

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like GWB when he purposed the Iraq “Surge”? Complete with troops numbers, benchmarks (which Obama opposed in the Senate) and timetables.

NYT thinks so, at least. There’s going to be a “surge” if you will, followed by an eventual draw down, ala Iraq. The question remains, how strict will Obama and his administration take this. He’s making the speech at West Point, which is a brave move on his part. He will have to look in the eyes of those kids and tell them that they are getting sent into Afghanistan. The speech, unlike most of Obama’s speeches, is said to be chock full of specific timelines and policy goals. More on this as it develops.

Although significant efforts have been made by the United States in its attempt to cut off the money supply to the Afghan Taliban, American officials admit: they have barely made a dent. A NYTimes article dwells into the subject and reveals that the Taliban is running a complicated and diversified financial operation. The primary source of funding include donations from abroad and revenues from opium production and trade. American officials are surprised to learn that the former has been a larger source of funds in the recent months as oppose to conventional wisdom that opium finances the Taliban. Even if the United States is successful in cutting off funds, one analyst argues that it might not make much of a difference as the low cost operations can be run with locally generated funds.

There is much to be concerned about in this story. 1. How will this affect the Obama administration’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, 2. How will these revelations change public opinion on possibility of success in Afghanistan? 3. Obama and his aides have already begun using their favorite line of defense as they blamed the Bush administration on Sunday. However this is Obama’s war now. He has said that Afghanistan is a war of necessity. Can he back away now as he is failing to win? Can he simply divert responsibility to the Bush administration?

That would certainly be the cowardly option.

Weeks after the Afghan election, no clear result has been announced by the alleged independent election commission. President Hamid Karzai’s opponent, Mr. Abdullah Abdullah, has maintained that election has been rigged in Mr. Karzai’s favor. His claim seems to be gaining credence as the election commission is currently in the process of invalidating thousands of ballots many from Pashtun districts, a stronghold of the President.

This is bad news for Mr. Obama, who has called Afghanistan a ‘war of necessity’. His liberal supporters have largely abandoned him and the American people have also become weary of being bogged down in the other foreign war. The election violence illustrates that America must maintain a long-term presence to have a ‘chance’ at a stable Afghanistan. Success by no means is guaranteed. Yet the president thinks the cause is worth the effort.

I believe it won’t be long before he has to backtrack on his promise and exit the country.