December 4th, 2009 by Jason

As General McChrystal assured the Afghan cabinet the U.S. was not abandoning its mission,  Secretary Clinton, in an op ed for The Telegraph, called on all nations to help with the mission in Afghanistan. Ultimately, she asserts: ”we recognise that only the Afghan people can decide what kind of national they want to build for themselves. And only the Pakistani people can ensure their country’s democratic future.”

Heeding the call, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark announced that a combination of 25 countries will provide approximately 7,000 more troops to the Afghan effort. In addition, U.S. Navy Adm. James Savridis, head of NATO and U.S. commander in Europe, told the Associated Press that he believes several thousand more non-U.S. troops may be deployed on top of the 7,000 announced by Rasmussen. Meanwhile, Italy also announced it will commit 1,000 new troops to the Afghan mission, and President Dmitry Medvedev also declared Russia’s support, explaining “we are obliged to help in Afghanistan.”

In remarks after the NATO announcement, Secretary Clinton praised the contributions of America’s allies, but also insisted that the U.S. must “provide a sense of urgency to the Afghans to do themselves what we know they’re capable of doing.” During her testimony on the Hill, in response to a question by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) about what happens when the Afghan regime fails to improve, Secretary Clinton asserted, “we aren’t aiming at some zero-corruption standard, we just want a more responsive government.” Meanwhile, in his own op-ed for The Washington Post, General Rasmussen explains NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan, insisting “good governance is the best way to close off the oxygen supply to the Taliban.”

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has written an op ed for Foreign Policy. He praises the President’s decision to send 30,000 additional troops, but worries about the implications of a timetable for withdrawal. He also expresses his concern that “we and our allies do not have a unified plan to ‘build’ - to work with and support our Afghan partners, in Kabul and beyond, as they build their own nation, their own economy, and their own free institutions.” In agreement with Sen. McCain, Max Boot expresses his satisfaction with the troop surge, withdrawal timetable excluded, explaining the additional troops will go a long way in providing enough security so Afghans “can begin the hard work of building Afghan government capacity.”

Despite criticism of the timetable, Afghan President Hamid Karzai observed the deadline will give “an impetus and a boost” for Afghans to take responsibility for their country. Karzai also expressed his willingness to negotiate with the Taliban leadership, but only if he has the support of the U.S. and other international partners.  Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal argues that a population-centric COIN strategy will not work in the 18-24 month timeline delineated by the Obama administration. Instead, the U.S. should focus on winning back the military initiative against the Taliban in an attempt to force better terms when the U.S. inevitably negotiates with them upon withdrawal.

In The Times, Lord Ashdown observes, “The Obama speech gave us a military plan - but not yet a political one. It was, in short, necessary, but not sufficient.” Ashdown echoes Sen. McCain’s concern of lack of unity amongst the allies, while also expressing doubt that Karzai will reform and whether centralized government is capable of controlling Afghanistan. Max Hastings also believes that Obama failed to adequately address necessary political questions concerning, both inside Afghanistan and for the region as a whole. He contends, “if we lose in Afghanistan, it will not because American soldiers are defeated, but because ‘our’ Afghans - the regime of Hamid Karzai - cannot deliver to the people honest policing, acceptable administration and visible quality of life improvements.” Meanwhile, Bernard Avishai at TPM sees little prospect for reform, predicting “Afghanistan will be ruled by a kleptocracy during our lifetimes […] building a modern, democratic Afghanistan is a fantasy.”

Differentiating between the Afghan and Iraqi surges, Richard Oppel at the At War blog explains that while Sunni Iraqis turned viewed the insurgents as “misguided,” in Afghanistan the Taliban “are viewed by the people as more effective and less venal than the American-backed Afghan government.” However, NDI explains the progress made with Afghanistan’s 420 provincial councilors, whose “primarily responsibilities are to ensure citizens’ views are reflected in provincial development planning, monitor and evaluate development programs in the province, and manage conflict among tribes, villages and districts.”

Finally, Juan Cole lists Pakistani concerns over the new U.S. Afghan strategy. Among them, Pakistan believes the U.S. is too reliant on the military while not seeking reconciliation between the Tajiks and Pashtuns. Cole also links an informative Al Jazeera English interview with Admiral Mullen.

Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Iraq, Military, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda |