rssObama Strategy Deepens U.S. Commitment to Afghanistan, Pakistan
Friday, March 27, 2009 at 6:40 pm
- 11 Comments
Pres. Barack Obama (WDCpix)
The Obama administration recast the seven-year-long war in Afghanistan on Friday with a deepened commitment to both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.
Announcing the release of a strategy deliberated by the administration for the past 60 days, President Barack Obama said the objective for the United States and its allies was “to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” To that end, he pledged to send an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to train Afghan security forces, on top of the 17,000 he has already ordered to deploy. A complement of civilian advisers from the State Department, USAID and other agencies that a White House aide said totalled in the “hundreds” will join them to help strengthen Afghan governance and economic development to cleave the Afghan population from an insurgency that has gained in strength for the past two years. The larger part of that strengthening will be an invigorated effort to expand the size and capabilities of the Afghan army and police force.
Significantly, Obama identified the source of the al-Qaeda problem as emanating from Pakistan, where for years, U.S. intelligence assessments have judged that the jihadist organization has constituted a safe haven in tribal areas largely out of the control of the Pakistani government. Obama offered a wide-ranging package of economic and diplomatic support for the government of Asif Ali Zardari to help Zardari confront militants, some of which are linked to al-Qaeda and many of whom strike U.S. and Afghan forces across the porous border with Afghanistan, who have made advances in taking territory away from Pakistani forces in recent months. Richard Holbrooke, the special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said the Pakistanis had given the administration a “red line” against the deployment of U.S. troops in Pakistan, although the new strategy devotes an unspecified number of troops to train Pakistan’s special operators and the Frontier Corps soldiers whom Zardari relies on to conduct counterinsurgency operations in the tribal areas.
“That is a cause that could not be more just,” Obama said.
As the review has proceeded, many in Washington and foreign capitals have wondered whether the administration would scale back the aims of the war, which under the Bush administration were rarely defined. A delegation of Afghan cabinet ministers that visited Washington last month sounded warnings against seeking “reductionist” goals in their country. Whether or not the goals have been scaled back, the administration forcefully rejected the idea that they were reducing the U.S. commitment to the two countries. “There is nothing minimalist about this approach,” said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official who chaired the administration’s strategy review.
“What we’re doing is stepping up to more fully resource a counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan,” said Michele Flournoy, the undersecretary of defense for policy, who co-chaired the review. “It is very much a counterinsurgency approach towards” the longer-term goal of “disrupting and defeating al Qaeda and its associates.”
Denis McDonough, the National Security Council’s director of strategic communications, offered a definitions of those terms. “Disrupting,” he said in a conference call after Obama’s speech, means preventing al-Qaeda from “carr[ying] out” plans to attack the U.S. at home. “Defeating” means a longer-view approach to countering “the violent, hopeless future” that al-Qaeda offers, though “different opportunities available to Pakistanis and Afghans and others.” But he added that the U.S. “need[s] to shut that safe haven down” that al-Qaeda maintains in Pakistan.
“The president has made very clear for years now that there’s a hardcore [membership of al-Qaeda] that there’s no reasoning with and no political process for,” McDonough said. “At the end of the day, they have to be met by force alone.”
Beyond that hard core, though, the administration intends to promote efforts led by the Afghan leadership to fracture the insurgency through outreach programs that hope to reconcile insurgent fighters with the government. The Afghan government expects has said it believes that “mid-level” insurgent commanders can be reconciled through negotiation and economic inducements would deprive most insurgent foot-soldiers of their motivation for fighting. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair estimated on Thursday that up to two-thirds of the insurgents were potentially reconcilable.
A senior British diplomat acknowledged in an interview that efforts so far at reconciling insurgents in Afghanistan had failed, but placed the blame for that failure on insufficient clarity and coordination between the Afghan government and the Bush administration, which did not devote resources to reconciliation, although the Afghan government has had talks with insurgent groups for years. “You have to get into a position where someone who wants to reconcile from the Taliban knows who to ring up, what door to knock on,” the diplomat said, arguing that the U.S., the U.K., the United Nations and NATO should work rapidly to support the Afghan government in setting up mechanisms for reconciliation. The Obama administration’s strategy calls for governors in every Afghan province to estabish reconciliation efforts.
“It’s better to make sure the plumbing works now, so that when the momentum turns, people know what do to,” the British diplomat said. “Reconciliation has to be Afghan-led, and we cannot afford to be perceived as being able to force the Afghan govt to do anything we want them to do.”
Holbrooke told the “News Hour’s” Margaret Warner on Friday that the prospects for reconciliation were promising. “The majority of people fighting for the Taliban are not fighting for the precepts of returning to a 14th Century caliphate or for Mullah Omar’s precepts,” he said. “We have to find ways to give these people alternatives — jobs in the agricultural sector. Make them understand that they’ve been misled by Mullah Omar and his core leadership.”
In Pakistan, the administration is constrained by the Pakistani government’s refusal to allow U.S. troops into the country. But the CIA, with the complicity of the Pakistani government, maintains a program to fly missile-equipped unmanned aerial vehicles from Pakistani territory for use against Pakistani insurgents. CIA Director Leon Panetta recently told reporters that the drone program would not end, despite concerns that an overreliance on drone attacks risks alienating the Pakistani populace. Additionally, Defense Secretary Bob Gates told the Pentagon TV channel that he does not “anticipate that U.S. troops would be going into Pakistan” to go after Osama bin Laden, which is short of a categorical refusal, a point first noticed by Wired’s Noah Shachtman.
Some in the administration are skeptical that the Pakistanis will meet their commitments under the new strategy. “You have people there who just lie to our face, like Zardari, who just lies to us,” said one official who requested anonymity, referring to the Pakistani president. “Honestly, I don’t believe there’s a war going on in the tribal areas. The Pakistanis tell us that, but they’re just baldfaced lies.” The official believes that U.S. diplomats in Pakistan accept Pakistani claims of maximal warfighting efforts at face value: “They don’t speak Urdu, they don’t speak Pashto, and they eat it all up.”
Army Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia, said he has discussed the Pakistani intelligence services’ former and perhaps current support for the Taliban with its director and with the chief of staff of the Pakistani Army. “It’s a topic that is of enormous importance,” he told the News Hour’s Warner, “because if there are links and if those continue and if it undermines the operations, obviously that would be very damaging to the kind of trust we need to build.”
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
11 Comments
Comment posted March 27, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
The threat continues to move East along the path of US expansion plans. This is the Brzezinski plan that many of us were saying Obama would follow, so it comes as no surprise to those that had Obama figured out before the election.
Pingback posted March 28, 2009 @ 11:35 am
[...] Dave Petraeus isn’t really convinced about the intentions and actions of the Pak army and ISI when it comes to their relations with the [...]
Comment posted March 28, 2009 @ 10:50 am
We Americans are going to end up looking as impotent as the USSR did after their Afghan War.
The time to beat Al-Qaeda was in the first (Bush-Cheney) American Afghan War,
he one Bush and Cheney lost. Yea, yea, I know we pushed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Pakistan (into a nuclear armed camp). Lot of good that did. Since Bush and Cheney lied about WMD to get the Iraq War going, the first American Afghanistan War was ignored and starved of military power.
America must come to terms with its recent extra legal/extra constitutional history under Bush and Cheney, before we take more such dangerous actions in foreign countries.
Bush, Cheney, and appointees lied about WMD, aluminum tubes, and Niger Uranium to con Congress into approving an invasion of Iraq, a country that did not have anything to do with 9-11.
In WW-II, in 4 years, FDR put 13,000,000 men in the fight, beat 3 dictatorships, their leaders dead at the end.
After 7 years of War On Terror, neither Bush nor Cheney could find Osama Bin Laden, our US reputation is in the gutter, we're still at war, over 4,200 US Soldiers are dead, over 30,000 maimed for the Bush-Cheney arrogance and lies. They ordered Torture, a violation of Federal Law.
If we as a people hope to force our public officials to obey our laws and our Constitution,
the time is Now
and the way to do it is
to prosecute members of the Bush administration
who violated Federal Laws,
including the law against Torturing prisoners.
The reason that we continue to have unnecessary wars of choice is
that our Congress makes excuses for lawbreaking officials instead of impeaching or prosecuting them.
Obama is running a risk tht he will soon be seen as
“no change” from Bush.
If Obama's “no one is above the law” is to be believed,
Obama must soon Appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR for all Bush officials who violated Our
Federal Laws (including Torture) and our Constitution
Avoiding prosecution of these well known Federal Crimes is an Admission by Obama
that He Supports Immunity for Bush, Cheney and Himself,
proving to all voters that high US officials
are protected from Federal Laws & our US Constitution
by their successors.
SIGN The PETITION To Prosecute Bush & Cheney for Torture
Comment posted March 28, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
People who understand this region of Afghanistan Pakistan know very well how closely linked these two countries are. There is no practice border between to the two countries as same ethnic group lives on both sides of the border and does not recognise the international border. Also for ages, as Afghanistan is a land locked country, all its trade is conducted through Pakistan. Resolving Pakistan will resolve Afghanistan and vice versa so for the purposes of eliminating Al-Qaida, this region should be considered one continuous territory and Afpak is an apt name for it.
http://real-politique.blogspot.com
By Sikander Hayat
Comment posted March 28, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
The US military cannot win the Afghan front or reduce “terrorism” with an Afghan campaign. But, since the US’s Afghan military invasion was and is ILLEGAL, Obama and Gates and their accomplices can continue to commit war crimes massively (with each additional killing or maiming or displacement the US causes).
The UN Charter says all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means; no state can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed Resolutions 1368 & 1373, which condemned the September 11 attacks; but neither authorized use of military force in Afghanistan.
Our Afghanistan invasion was not self-defense per article 51 of the Charter. The 9/11 attacks were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” wrought by another state — another national government or national military. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis.
After 9/11, the US did not face an imminent threat of an armed attack of Afghanistan or any other state. Just so, Bush waited three weeks before starting to bomb Afghanistan. And the reason was just that Afghanistan’s Taliban government would not turn over bin Laden, not that the Taliban government made any threat of attacking the US or any of its territories.
The UN-Charter-required self-defense NECESSITY must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This long-standing principle of self-defense was affirmed not only by the U.N. General Assembly, but also by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Suppose, before 9/11, Afghanistan's Taliban government asserted that a certain international terrorist organization had set up headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri and that the organization had executed a terrorist attack against Kabul. The Taliban government demanded that our government render to the Taliban government the terrorist organization's leaders. Our government refused, asserting sovereignty. The Taliban invade the US to find and apprehend the terrorist organization's leaders, and the Taliban's invading force topples our government.
Obama and the US do not have a defense in the assertion that the Afghan “government” permits the US military’s (and NATO forces’) presence. The Afghan government is a US installation achieved by the US’s illegal invasion. With illegal invasion, the US military ousted the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Even if the current US puppet government WERE legitimate, US (and NATO) military operations are illegal, because the “government” has demanded that the US (and NATO) cede to the government the control of military operations.
Now, instead of withdrawing our illegally-present military from Afghanistan or at least yielding to the Afghan “government” control of military operations there (as that government has demanded), Obama is expanding our illegal Afghan war and invading Pakistan, which has not authorized our invasion and has not given any cause of our invading it for self defense. Pakistan has not attacked the US. No UN Resolution authorizes the US to invade Pakistan. So, each time the US military kills a Pakistani by invading Pakistan, Obama and Gates and their accomplices commit a war crime.
Comment posted March 28, 2009 @ 5:50 pm
We Americans are going to end up looking as impotent as the USSR did after their Afghan War.
The time to beat Al-Qaeda was in the first (Bush-Cheney) American Afghan War,
he one Bush and Cheney lost. Yea, yea, I know we pushed the Taliban and Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Pakistan (into a nuclear armed camp). Lot of good that did. Since Bush and Cheney lied about WMD to get the Iraq War going, the first American Afghanistan War was ignored and starved of military power.
America must come to terms with its recent extra legal/extra constitutional history under Bush and Cheney, before we take more such dangerous actions in foreign countries.
Bush, Cheney, and appointees lied about WMD, aluminum tubes, and Niger Uranium to con Congress into approving an invasion of Iraq, a country that did not have anything to do with 9-11.
In WW-II, in 4 years, FDR put 13,000,000 men in the fight, beat 3 dictatorships, their leaders dead at the end.
After 7 years of War On Terror, neither Bush nor Cheney could find Osama Bin Laden, our US reputation is in the gutter, we're still at war, over 4,200 US Soldiers are dead, over 30,000 maimed for the Bush-Cheney arrogance and lies. They ordered Torture, a violation of Federal Law.
If we as a people hope to force our public officials to obey our laws and our Constitution,
the time is Now
and the way to do it is
to prosecute members of the Bush administration
who violated Federal Laws,
including the law against Torturing prisoners.
The reason that we continue to have unnecessary wars of choice is
that our Congress makes excuses for lawbreaking officials instead of impeaching or prosecuting them.
Obama is running a risk tht he will soon be seen as
“no change” from Bush.
If Obama's “no one is above the law” is to be believed,
Obama must soon Appoint a SPECIAL PROSECUTOR for all Bush officials who violated Our
Federal Laws (including Torture) and our Constitution
Avoiding prosecution of these well known Federal Crimes is an Admission by Obama
that He Supports Immunity for Bush, Cheney and Himself,
proving to all voters that high US officials
are protected from Federal Laws & our US Constitution
by their successors.
SIGN The PETITION To Prosecute Bush & Cheney for Torture
Comment posted March 29, 2009 @ 12:37 am
The US military cannot win the Afghan front or reduce “terrorism” with an Afghan campaign. But, since the US’s Afghan military invasion was and is ILLEGAL, Obama and Gates and their accomplices can continue to commit war crimes massively (with each additional killing or maiming or displacement the US causes).
The UN Charter says all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means; no state can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the Council passed Resolutions 1368 & 1373, which condemned the September 11 attacks; but neither authorized use of military force in Afghanistan.
Our Afghanistan invasion was not self-defense per article 51 of the Charter. The 9/11 attacks were criminal attacks, not “armed attacks” wrought by another state — another national government or national military. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, 15 were Saudis.
After 9/11, the US did not face an imminent threat of an armed attack of Afghanistan or any other state. Just so, Bush waited three weeks before starting to bomb Afghanistan. And the reason was just that Afghanistan’s Taliban government would not turn over bin Laden, not that the Taliban government made any threat of attacking the US or any of its territories.
The UN-Charter-required self-defense NECESSITY must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” This long-standing principle of self-defense was affirmed not only by the U.N. General Assembly, but also by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Suppose, before 9/11, Afghanistan's Taliban government asserted that a certain international terrorist organization had set up headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri and that the organization had executed a terrorist attack against Kabul. The Taliban government demanded that our government render to the Taliban government the terrorist organization's leaders. Our government refused, asserting sovereignty. The Taliban invade the US to find and apprehend the terrorist organization's leaders, and the Taliban's invading force topples our government.
Obama and the US do not have a defense in the assertion that the Afghan “government” permits the US military’s (and NATO forces’) presence. The Afghan government is a US installation achieved by the US’s illegal invasion. With illegal invasion, the US military ousted the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Even if the current US puppet government WERE legitimate, US (and NATO) military operations are illegal, because the “government” has demanded that the US (and NATO) cede to the government the control of military operations.
Now, instead of withdrawing our illegally-present military from Afghanistan or at least yielding to the Afghan “government” control of military operations there (as that government has demanded), Obama is expanding our illegal Afghan war and invading Pakistan, which has not authorized our invasion and has not given any cause of our invading it for self defense. Pakistan has not attacked the US. No UN Resolution authorizes the US to invade Pakistan. So, each time the US military kills a Pakistani by invading Pakistan, Obama and Gates and their accomplices commit a war crime.
Pingback posted March 29, 2009 @ 8:44 am
[...] a very important quote that Spencer Ackerman got that has implications well beyond issues in our policy toward Pakistan: Some in the administration are skeptical that the Pakistanis will meet their commitments under the [...]
Pingback posted March 29, 2009 @ 10:37 am
[...] The problems of ‘America’s imperial project‘. [...]
Pingback posted March 29, 2009 @ 11:45 am
[...] problems of ‘America’s imperial project‘. [...]
Comment posted August 6, 2010 @ 7:31 am
After 7 years of War On Terror, neither Bush nor Cheney could find Osama Bin Laden, our US reputation is in the gutter, we're still at war, over 4,200 US Soldiers are dead, over 30,000 maimed for the Bush-Cheney arrogance and lies. They ordered Torture, a violation of Federal Law.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
