2009.03.20: March 20, 2009: Headlines: COS - Afghanistan: Figures: COS - Congo Kinshasa: Foreign Policy: Brookings Institute: Obama: Politico: Michael O'Hanlon writes: Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

Peace Corps Online: Directory: Congo - Kinshasa (Zaire): Special Report: National Security Expert and Congo Kinshasa RPCV Michael O'Hanlon: 2009.03.20: March 20, 2009: Headlines: COS - Afghanistan: Figures: COS - Congo Kinshasa: Foreign Policy: Brookings Institute: Obama: Politico: Michael O'Hanlon writes: Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

By Admin1 (admin) (141.157.6.22) on Sunday, March 22, 2009 - 10:28 am: Edit Post

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

The buildup in Afghanistan will, in the end, take a year - far longer than it took us to put all surge forces in place in Iraq. And even counting NATO forces, it will provide us only about half the numbers that the foreign coalition had in Iraq. Given this slow pace, we have to be patient in expecting results. This year will be bloody and will probably not lead to much measurable progress, if any. Fortunately, violence levels in Afghanistan, while worse than before, are not nearly as bad today as they were in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 (in fact, they resemble those of South Africa or Mexico or Colombia or Russia today). Also, while many Americans and Afghans have soured on President Hamid Karzai, he has appointed some good Cabinet officials, starting with Minister of Interior Muhammad Hanif Atmar and Minister of Defense Abdul Rahim Wardak. These two capable men are in charge of security force reform, perhaps the most crucial task in the country. On balance - with our expectations modest, our troops better than ever at this sort of operation, some good Afghans in place to work with us and serious resources devoted to the effort - the odds are good that we will succeed in Afghanistan. We have about a two-thirds chance. But given the alternatives, that's a gamble worth running. Michael O'Hanlon, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute and a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University, served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Congo Kinshasa.

Michael O'Hanlon writes: Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

Can Obama win in Afghanistan?

By MICHAEL O'HANLON | 3/20/09 4:57 AM EDT

By 2010, the Afghanistan conflict will have become the longest war in American history. Is it a quagmire that we should extricate ourselves from while there is still time? Should the buildup in U.S. forces now under way even be tried?

The answer to the last question is yes. Leave aside the domestic politics. The strategic stakes are high, given that this part of the world has become Al Qaeda central (and that nuclear-armed Pakistan is directly involved). In addition, the prospects for success - or at least partial success, permitting a reasonably stable country, free of major terrorist sanctuaries - are pretty good.

But Afghanistan could become a quagmire. It is unlikely but possible. So even as we intensify the effort, we need realistic expectations about how long the effort will take - and how to know if it is failing. President Barack Obama should approve the full buildup his commanders are requesting, even as he also steels the nation for a difficult and uncertain mission ahead.

Why Obama's new strategy makes sense

Obama is completing a review process that is likely, in the end, to approve roughly doubling U.S. combat forces in Afghanistan to about 65,000 from 30,000 or so. The total NATO-led international force will then approach 100,000 total troops; the overall coalition will also include 150,000 Afghans in uniform (about a quarter of whom are presently in respectable military shape).

To some critics, this buildup looks like pouring additional resources into a black hole deep in the heart of the mountains of Central Asia, with no particular sense of what they will do or why they will be helpful. In fact, some critics argue that the buildup will make matters worse - not only for our troops, who will likely die in larger numbers than before, but for the prospects of the mission, since a buildup will further antagonize the famously xenophobic Afghan people and further motivate the Taliban as well as other extremists.

Admittedly, there are risks to the buildup. But what Afghans resent most is foreigners who want to colonize their country (e.g., the British in the 19th century) and foreigners who come in and make life worse for them (e.g., the Soviets in the 1980s). Polls and private conversations suggest they are agnostic about foreigners who want to stay just long enough to help them establish a viable state, viable military and police institutions and a stronger economy - and then leave. Anti-Americanism is indeed worsening in Afghanistan today, and it is a real problem. But it is far less severe than Afghans' hatred of the Taliban. Every poll I've ever seen puts the Taliban's popularity ratings in the single-digit range.

The buildup of U.S. forces is designed to do four main things. First, together with allies, it will help us provide basic population security in the country's south and east. True, troop numbers will remain inadequate even after the reinforcements have arrived. But we can concentrate our efforts in those parts of the country that are nearest Pakistan and most violent. Second, working with Afghans and NATO allies, the buildup will help us protect roads - a step that is needed in order to convey a sense of normalcy in the country and to help farmers get crops besides opium to market. (Also, over time, having more eyes on roads should complicate the ability of insurgents to plant improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, when we aren't watching - and IEDs are the main threat to our troops in Afghanistan today.) Third, we will vigorously train Afghan soldiers, police and border police for the first time - including embedding advisers with units as they deploy in the field, even after basic training is complete. Until now, we have had only half the trainers we need, at best. Fourth, we will try to interdict some movements of Taliban and other insurgent groups across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Why it might not work

Even with the solid logic of this new strategy, even with a U.S. military that has become very good at counterinsurgency leading the way, this strategy could fail.

Even with the new forces, we still won't really have enough troops to properly protect the Afghan population. (Among other things, the Afghan police and Army need to grow much more, at least doubling in overall size.) We certainly won't have enough capability to seal the border with Pakistan. The drug trade could prove too endemic, and corruption too prevalent, to permit reform.

The need for resolve - and for patience

And even if it works, the pace of our buildup will be slow, meaning that results will be slow to appear. I would predict that Obama will soon approve another 15,000 U.S. troops for Afghanistan, making for a grand total of about 65,000, as noted above. (He has approved an additional 17,000 to date, meaning that we will have about 50,000 soldiers and Marines on the ground by sometime this summer or so.) There is no point in his delaying this decision, because it makes him look tentative and at odds with his commanders. Since he's already building up forces, there's little point in trying to stay half-pregnant.

But even if I am right, the buildup in Afghanistan will, in the end, take a year - far longer than it took us to put all surge forces in place in Iraq. And even counting NATO forces, it will provide us only about half the numbers that the foreign coalition had in Iraq. Given this slow pace, we have to be patient in expecting results. This year will be bloody and will probably not lead to much measurable progress, if any.

Fortunately, violence levels in Afghanistan, while worse than before, are not nearly as bad today as they were in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 (in fact, they resemble those of South Africa or Mexico or Colombia or Russia today). Also, while many Americans and Afghans have soured on President Hamid Karzai, he has appointed some good Cabinet officials, starting with Minister of Interior Muhammad Hanif Atmar and Minister of Defense Abdul Rahim Wardak. These two capable men are in charge of security force reform, perhaps the most crucial task in the country.

On balance - with our expectations modest, our troops better than ever at this sort of operation, some good Afghans in place to work with us and serious resources devoted to the effort - the odds are good that we will succeed in Afghanistan. We have about a two-thirds chance. But given the alternatives, that's a gamble worth running.

Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.





Links to Related Topics (Tags):

Headlines: March, 2009; RPCV Michael O'Hanlon (Congo Kinshasa); Peace Corps Afghanistan; Directory of Afghanistan RPCVs; Messages and Announcements for Afghanistan RPCVs; Figures; Peace Corps Congo Kinshasa; Directory of Congo Kinshasa RPCVs; Messages and Announcements for Congo Kinshasa RPCVs; Presidents - Obama





When this story was posted in March 2009, this was on the front page of PCOL:




Peace Corps Online The Independent News Forum serving Returned Peace Corps Volunteers RSS Feed

 Site Index Search PCOL with Google Contact PCOL Recent Posts Bulletin Board Open Discussion RPCV Directory Register

PCOL's Candidate for Peace Corps Director Date: December 2 2008 No: 1288 PCOL's Candidate for Peace Corps Director
Honduras RPCV Jon Carson, 33, presided over thousands of workers as national field director for the Obama campaign and said the biggest challenge -- and surprise -- was the volume of volunteer help, including more than 15,000 "super volunteers," who were a big part of what made Obama's campaign so successful. PCOL endorses Jon Carson as the man who can revitalize the Peace Corps, bring it into the internet age, and meet Obama's goal of doubling the size of the Peace Corps by 2011.

Director Ron Tschetter:  The PCOL Interview Date: December 9 2008 No: 1296 Director Ron Tschetter: The PCOL Interview
Peace Corps Director Ron Tschetter sat down for an in-depth interview to discuss the evacuation from Bolivia, political appointees at Peace Corps headquarters, the five year rule, the Peace Corps Foundation, the internet and the Peace Corps, how the transition is going, and what the prospects are for doubling the size of the Peace Corps by 2011. Read the interview and you are sure to learn something new about the Peace Corps. PCOL previously did an interview with Director Gaddi Vasquez.

Feb 22, 2009: Return to Indonesia? Date: March 1 2009 No: 1333 Feb 22, 2009: Return to Indonesia?
Clinton says PC expects to resume in Indonesia 18 Feb
Indonesia still touchy about Peace Corps 17 Feb
PCVs Remain Safe in Madagascar 30 Jan
Dodd's Senate seat up for grabs? 21 Feb
Tony Hall Talks About Poverty and Hunger 18 Feb
Pro Football Player Aaron Merz to serve in Zambia 17 Feb
Moyers could be new Murrow for US Public Diplomacy 17 Feb
Obituary for Nigeria CD Francis Underhill Macy 10 Feb
George Packer writes: Parties argue government role 10 Feb
James Rupert writes: Missile Strikes Counterproductive? 10 Feb
Danny Hevrol in Madagascar amidst fighting 6 Feb
Reed Hastings writes: Please Raise My Taxes 6 Feb
Obama overrides Hillary on Chris Hill appointment 6 Feb
Joseph Acaba has "The Right Stuff" 4 Feb
Maureen Orth writes: A New Start 2 Feb
Henry Rayburn could make art out of anything 1 Feb
Obama out to marry military power with diplomacy 30 Jan
Mike Fay honored by the San Diego Zoo 30 Jan
Charles Stroh writes: Karzai seen as impediment to change 29 Jan
Madeleine Meek writes: The market and the bath 26 Jan
NPCA gets new Web Site 22 Jan
Read more stories from January and February 2009.

Some PCVs return to Bolivia on their own Date: October 23 2008 No: 1279 Some PCVs return to Bolivia on their own
Peace Corps has withdrawn all volunteers from Bolivia because of "growing instability" and the expulsion of US Ambassador Philip Goldberg after Bolivian President Evo Morales accused the American government of inciting violence in the country. This is not the first controversy surrounding Goldberg's tenure as US ambassador to Bolivia. Latest: Some volunteers have returned to Bolivia on their own to complete their projects.



Read the stories and leave your comments.








Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.

Story Source: Politico

This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; COS - Afghanistan; Figures; COS - Congo Kinshasa; Foreign Policy; Brookings Institute; Obama

PCOL43116
27


Add a Message


This is a public posting area. Enter your username and password if you have an account. Otherwise, enter your full name as your username and leave the password blank. Your e-mail address is optional.
Username:  
Password:
E-mail: