The publication Monday of a secret assessment by the new U.S. and
NATO commander in Afghanistan has sparked a fresh round of debate about
what the coalition strategy should be and how many troops are needed
to implement it.
President Barack Obama laid out his strategy for Afghanistan in March.
He said the main goal must be to prevent the country from again becoming a base
for terrorist attacks on the United States as it was in 2001, which he
said requires preventing the Taliban from returning to power. And he
added this:
"For
six years Afghanistan has been denied the resources it demands because
of the war in Iraq. Now we must make a commitment that can accomplish
our goals," he said.
Now,
the president's new commander in Afghanistan has presented his resource
requirements. In a secret assessment published by The Washington Post
Monday, General Stanley McChrystal says he needs more forces and,
without them, the effort faces possible failure. The general has not
made a specific troop request, but experts say he could ask for as many
as 40,000, maybe more, on top of the doubling of U.S. troop strength to
68,000 in the past year.
After seeing the general's grim
assessment, President Obama told American television networks over the
weekend he is in the process of reviewing his own six-month-old
strategy, and he questioned whether supporting the Afghan government,
building its security forces and securing key provinces, is the right
approach. All that is in General McChrystal's plan.
Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates appealed for patience as the administration works through the issue.
"Frankly
I believe that the president deserves the right to absorb the
assessment himself and have his questions and my questions and others'
questions relating to the assessment answered," he said.
In
addition, officials now say General McChrystal's assessment is just one
part of a broader Afghanistan strategy review by the administration,
its second since the president took office in January.
The
president's apparent hesitation to approve the military plan to
implement the strategy he announced in March leaves many analysts
confused. In editorials, The Washington Post called the review
"startling," and the USA Today newspaper said there is "a yawning need
for clarity" and warned against trying to use half-measures to achieve
important goals.
Analyst Thomas Donnelly at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute says President Obama should accept the
recommendations, and then convince the American public to go
along. Public opinion polls indicate growing skepticism among
Americans.
"Well
they certainly will be doubtful of it unless President Obama makes a
strong argument. A year ago, he was campaigning for the presidency on
the presumption that Iraq was a big mistake and we needed to focus on
Afghanistan. No wonder that with an uncertain voice coming out of the
White House, Americans will have their doubts," Donnelly said.
On
the other side of the political spectrum, Jonathan Morganstein of the
progressive Third Way research organization, also endorses the
McChrystal assessment, and says the president should accept the
general's recommendations.
"I
don't think anything there was a surprise. What the assessment says is,
basically, things are catastrophically bad in Afghanistan, which is,
I'd say, objectively true, but that things are not unsalvageable, that
we can turn this around as long as we stay dedicated to the
appropriate strategy and fully resource that strategy. Everything that
General McChrystal has laid out makes sense to me," Morganstein said.
Morganstein,
who is also an officer in the Marine Corps Reserves, says U.S. troops
are now experienced at fighting insurgents, on the battlefield and among the local population. He says American forces will be able to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaida
in Afghanistan - as they made significant gains against insurgents in
Iraq - if the president sends enough troops and other resources to do
the job.
But for Mr. Obama, the decision is not that easy. Just
a few months ago, he approved the latest increase of more than 20,000
U.S. troops in Afghanistan, allowing for more aggressive operations
against Taliban strongholds.
The result has been some progress on the
ground, but also a sharp increase in U.S. casualties, with more than
200 American troops killed so far this year. That is 25 percent of all the U.S. military deaths in
Afghanistan since the war began.
Secretary Gates has indicated that casualties weigh heavily on him, along with the strategic importance of these decisions.
"We
need to understand that the decisions that the president faces on
Afghanistan are some of the most important he may face in his
presidency about how we go forward there. And this is a situation in
which I think this decision process should not be rushed," Gates said.
The U.S. defense secretary
has rejected suggestions for a more limited approach emphasizing
air strikes over troops on the ground. But after eight years of war,
amid rising casualties and wavering American public support, and with
huge national security issues at stake, he says the administration
needs to take its time and get the decisions right.
