Obama’s Surge Strategy in Afghanistan: The Best Hope for a Turnover
No one should assume that deploying 30,000 troops will turn the tide in Afghanistan. Indeed, that’s not the goal of President Obama strategy. The administration is not asking for a “reset” for Afghanistan but is dealing with the reality of a failed effort to date and the limited resources available for this endeavor. Part of that reality is that we will be handing over the fight to the Afghan government, whether we provide more troops or not.
Few are eager to commit more troops to Afghanistan, but every course of action, from rapid withdrawal to maximum effort, is fraught with risks to our interests and human and financial costs. The president’s strategy is an attempt to balance these costs and reduce the risk by building capability within the Afghan military, the ultimate determinant in this equation.
A recent RAND study found that the success of counterinsurgency efforts rest on two factors: domestic support for the host government and external support for insurgents, including sanctuary.
This gives us pause for concern about our partners in the conflict, but we have seen the Pakistan government finally move aggressively against its Taliban fighters. And although we have heard only promises from Kabul, the U.S. has considerable leverage over Ahmed Karzai, and we have been able to buildup the Afghan military despite the corruption.
In the end, we must use all of our diplomatic skills and our economic and intelligence assets to bring our allies into the fight. U.S. military operations alone will not be enough to change the course of events in the region, but a limited duration of enhanced military operations as part of a cohesive grand strategy is the best hope for turning the fight over to those who have the most vested in its outcome.
Paul Clarke, a retired Air Force officer, served on the White House staffs of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. He is a senior fellow with the Truman National Security Project.
