Afghanistan solution will need more than military force - Obama

[Turborama]

Source: Reuters

The situation in Afghanistan seems to be getting worse and a solution will require more than just military force, US president Barack Obama said today.

"There are a lot of concerns about a conflict that has lasted quite a long time now and actually appears to be deteriorating at this point," he told CBC television in an interview ahead of his visit to Canada on Thursday.

Obama voiced appreciation for Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan and gave no hint that he would ask prime minister Stephen Harper to extend the combat mission there beyond the mid-2011 date agreed by Parliament.

"Very soon we will be releasing some initial plans in terms of how we are going to approach the military side of the equation in Afghanistan," he said.

"But I'm absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region, solely through military means," he added.

"We're going to have use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development, and my hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy."

Read more: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0217/breaking75.htm

---

It's about time we heard this...

Transcript of the CBC News interview with Obama

Source: CBC News

=snip=

MANSBRIDGE: Afghanistan. As you know, Canada has been there from the beginning, since the fall of 2001, and has suffered extreme casualties in its combat missions there. And the Canadian Parliament has decided, out of combat by the year 2011. When you get to Ottawa, will you have any suggestions to Canada that it should reconsider what its role in Afghanistan is?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think the Canadian contribution has been extraordinary, and for all the families who have borne the burden in Canada, I think we all have a heartfelt thanks.

I'm in the process of a strategic review of our approach in Afghanistan. Very soon we will be releasing some initial plans in terms of how we are going to approach the military side of the equation in Afghanistan.

But I am absolutely convinced that you cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region solely through military means. We're going to have to use diplomacy, we're going to have to use development, and my hope is that in conversations that I have with Prime Minister Harper, that he and I end up seeing the importance of a comprehensive strategy, and one that ultimately the people of Canada can support, as well as the people of the United States can support. Because obviously, here as well, there are a lot of concerns about a conflict that has lasted quite a long time now and actually appears to be deteriorating at this point.

=snip=

MANSBRIDGE: Is Afghanistan still winnable?

OBAMA: Well, I think Afghanistan is still winnable, in the sense of our ability to ensure that it is not a launching pad for attacks against North America. I think it's still possible for us to stamp out al-Qaeda to make sure that extremism is not expanding but rather is contracting. I think all those goals are still possible, but I think that as a consequence to the war on Iraq, we took our eye off the ball. We have not been as focused as we need to be on all the various steps that are needed in order to deal with Afghanistan.

If you've got narco-trafficking that is funding the Taliban, if there is a perception that there's no rule of law in Afghanistan, if we don't solve the issue of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, then we're probably not going to solve the problem.

=snip=

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/17/obama-transcript.html



(edit to fix typo)

[mike_c]

1. America OUT of Afghanistan, NOW!

End America's imperialist wars NOW!

[Wwagsthedog]

2. My sentiments also

I second your motion for what it's worth. Winding down our military-industrial complex would solve the ecoonomic crisis.

[Turborama]

3. "We're going to have to use development", and here's why we need troops for that

As much as I totally agree with your sentiment, what's been badly needed in Afghanistan since the invasion is reconstruction of a totally fucked up country (excuse my French but I can't think of a better way of putting it right now). Unfortunately, this cannot be done without troops providing the security that's required whilst the reconstruction is stepped up. Hearing President Obama speak like this gives hope that at last the real problems with Afghanistan can finally be addressed.

-- ---- --

From a very insightful article written recently titled "Graveyard of analogies" as reviewed by the http://ideas.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/the-misguided-soviet-afghan-analogy/">NYT:

Afghanistan | Americans aren’t destined to meet the same fate in Afghanistan as the Russians, Ahmed Rashid writes. The Soviets sent woefully inadequate forces to impose a Communist model “that had nothing to do with the nature and traditions of the Afghan people.” By contrast, if the Americans commit resources sufficient to win hearts and minds and defeat Taliban forces — many of whom hold simply “local grievances” and can be won over — Afghanistan is “indeed winnable.”

Are the Americans destined to meet the same fate in Afghanistan as the Russians? Ahmed Rashid argues that it is not too late for Washington to make good on its promises.

=snip=

Barack Obama has pledged to withdraw US troops from Iraq while stepping up the American commitment in Afghanistan. He has yet to fully flesh out the policy he will pursue, but seems to understand that what is required is a “comprehensive surge” that goes beyond new troops and new tactics to increase and coordinate development and reconstruction, provide security to the Afghan people and embark on a diplomatic initiative to bring Afghanistan’s multiple meddling neighbours together to stabilise the country and end the sanctuary the Taliban still enjoy in Pakistan. Obama has appointed a special envoy to the region, the seasoned senior diplomat Richard Holbrooke, and has begun to get tough with the Karzai government over corruption and the drugs trade.

The Bush administration lacked an overarching strategy for Afghanistan and its neighbours, and Obama does not want to repeat that mistake. He has already announced orders to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and he will soon make a historic speech in a Muslim capital, where he is likely to repudiate Bush’s “global war on terror” and announce a policy of talking to militant groups, including the Taliban, while continuing the pursuit of global jihadists. Bush left regional diplomacy largely in the hands of the Pentagon, while Obama will restore the role of the State Department. Several senior administration officials have acknowledged that they cannot “shoot their way to victory” in Afghanistan.

In the interim, however, the situation in Pakistan has worsened substantially, with the rise of the Pakistani Taliban, heightened post-Mumbai tensions with India, an insurgency in Balochistan and grave rifts between the elected government and the powerful army. Ironically it may be the case that Afghanistan poses less of a challenge: the Taliban, although feared, are still intensely disliked, and the country can be stabilised with a massive infusion of money and troops alongside proper strategies for reconstruction and the rebuilding of state institutions.

=snip


Full article: http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090130/REVIEW/458735663/1008

From May, 2003:

Afghanistan and broken promises

By Hooman Peimani

Last week, Afghan President Hamid Karzai threatened to resign if Afghan warlords refused to transfer to his barely-functioning government over US$500 million in collected taxes. His "threat" only brought smiles to the faces of the warlords, the practical rulers of Afghanistan apart from the capital Kabul, who reportedly promised cooperation with the Karzai government only to add another item to their long list of unfulfilled promises. However, the event reminded the international community one more time how forgotten Afghanistan has been left on its own to deal with its numerous economic problems as most international donors have failed to honor their pledges of sustainable adequate financial aid.

In the absence of the required funds to address immediate problems and to begin the badly needed reconstruction program, the worsening economic situation has created grounds for the continuation of all the ills of the pre-Karzai era. Taliban/al-Qaeda have regrouped and expanded their military operations against American forces and those of its Afghan and non-Afghan allies. Beside inflicting daily causalities on those forces, they now even capture small cities for a short while to show their power. The Karzai administration is practically non-existent outside Kabul, while it can only survive in that city thanks to 5,000 foreign troops; its president can only trust his American bodyguards with his life.

A major, if not the major, internal reason for the worsening political, economic and security situation is the inability of the Afghan central government in tackling its country's impoverishment. Not only has Afghanistan's reconstruction not begun in a meaningful way, the amount of available foreign aid has been less than the financial assistance promised in the January 2002 Tokyo conference. The donors participating in that conference pledged over $4.5 billion towards Afghanistan's reconstruction to be provided to the Afghan government over five years. However, most of the pledged assistance will most likely not be honored. This became evident in 2002 as only about 50 percent of the promised amount ($1.8 billion) for that year actually reached Afghanistan.

Although this amount was less than anticipated, it could still have made a significant positive impact had it been given to the Afghan government. The latter could have spent it on necessary projects to address immediate pressing needs, while providing for the required infrastructure to embark on a reconstruction program. However, the largest chunk of the internationally-provided funds was spent not on the badly needed projects, but on the expenses related to the settlement and operation of various United Nations agencies and non-government organizations operating in Afghanistan. Such expenses included those of their various work and residential facilities, the hefty salaries for their mainly Western employees and their spotless new air-conditioned cars.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EE27Ag01.html">More

From April 2008:

Afghanistan Reconstruction: The Missing Link


The long-term success of counter-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan means denying the country to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other extremist groups as a safe haven – which means helping the Afghan government become sufficiently stable, representative and effective that its citizens prefer it to the promises and threats of extremists.

As the fifth lowest ranking state on the UN Development Programme’s Human Development Index, Afghanistan faces extraordinary challenges. Yet, considering the importance of the outcome, the U.S. contribution to reconstruction has been shockingly small. In constant dollars per capita, we have spent far less in Afghanistan than in Iraq – or in the Balkans in the 1990s. We have allowed the aid efforts to be poorly coordinated and riddled with waste – and funneled large amounts of the money back to American contractors rather than to Afghan agencies.

This failure is undermining the Karzai government and demoralizing Afghan civilians, making it easier for the Taliban insurgency to reestablish itself. A stronger Taliban endangers our troops and poses a significant threat to all that we have achieved in Afghanistan. Washington must take care of our long-term security interests – and keep our promises to the Afghan people – by refocusing on Afghanistan, redoubling our assistance efforts, and addressing the problems of management and coordination on the ground.


The Situation in Afghanistan is Grave

According to the Brookings Institution, Afghanistan is the world’s second weakest state. Not only did Afghanistan receive a worse rating than Iraq, but it is also the "most insecure" state, according to the Brookings Weak State Index. "It has suffered from a long history of violent conflict as well as a lack of government control over significant portions of its territory and an inability to curtail grave human rights abuses. In the area of social welfare, Afghanistan also receives the world’s lowest score due to high child mortality, inadequate access to improved water and sanitation, and low primary school completion rates." http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/02_weak_states_index.aspx">Brookings, 2/26/08

Afghanistan received the 5th lowest rating on the 2007/2008 Human Development Index sponsored by UNDP. It was ahead of only Burkina Faso, Mali, Sierra Leone and Niger. Its Human Poverty Index ratings are equally abysmal, and the United Nations Human Development report for Afghanistan cites that in those terms, the country ranks as one of the "worst in the world." In addition, most Afghans live on less than a dollar a day and infant mortality rates are among the world's highest, while life expectancy is extremely low. http://www.undp.org.af/Publications/KeyDocuments/nhdr07_complete.pdf">Human Development Report for Afghanistan, 2007/2008

=snip=

Ineffective Reconstruction Efforts Are Undermining the Afghan Government and Empowering the Taliban

Reconstruction failures have badly tarnished the Karzai government and created opportunities for the Taliban. “They are also increasingly frustrated with the failure of President Karzai’s government to extend its authority and services throughout the country and by the lack of improvement in their daily lives six years after the international reconstruction process was launched. The Taliban have been able to exploit the Karzai government’s shortcomings to their advantage.” http://www.thepresidency.org/pubs/Afghan_Study_Group_final.pdf">Jones-Pickering Report, 1/30/08

With few tangible benefits from reconstruction efforts, public support for the government is decreasing. In 2005, 77 percent of Afghans felt that their country was headed in the right direction, but today that number has dwindled to 54 percent. The Jones-Pickering report suggests that a failure to address longstanding challenges stemming from “insecurity, weak governance, widespread corruption, a poor economy and unemployment” is at the core of declining Afghan support. http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Story?id=3931809&page=2">ABC News, 12/03/07
, http://www.thepresidency.org/pubs/Afghan_Study_Group_final.pdf">Jones-Pickering Report, 1/30/08



Continue reading the rest of this extremely insightful report, http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/828">here

(edit to fix typo)

[SpartanDem]

4. Obama is taking the right approach

leaving to simply let the Taliban takover again so they can start brutalizing their people and allow Al Quad use the country as base probably isn't the best idea in the world.

[Turborama]

6. Totally agree, we need to fix the thing we broke before we go anywhere...

Russia played a big part in 'breaking' Afghanistan too but we've taken charge of the problem and we can't leave until the problems pointed out above are fixed...

[TheLastMohican]

8. We ain't going to fix jacks...t

Have you ever been to Kabul?
The place is a warzone with foreign companies' headquarters behind sand bag barricades and razor wire.

Nothing good will come out of it but more bodybags and someone crying at home.

Time to leave now.

[Turborama]

9. Do you remember what happened when the Russians left? This is definitely a job that should NOT

be left half done.

Have you ever been to Kabul?
The place is a warzone with foreign companies' headquarters behind sand bag barricades and razor wire.


Have you http://www.rawa.org/fa-kab.htm">seen what life in Kabul was like http://www.rawa.org/kab.htm">under the Taliban?.

Afghanistan from 1992-98 (warning, these links contain some graphic images):
http://www.rawa.org/bwphoto.html">Gallery 1
http://www.rawa.org/darkdays/all.htm">Gallery 2
http://www.rawa.org/images.htm">Gallery 3
http://www.rawa.org/list2.htm">Gallery 4

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4201322772364661561">This documentary filmed undercover in 2000 gives a good insight into what life under the Taliban was like too...

Mind if I remind you what the title of this thread is and ask you to read the documents I've added above in full?

Kabul may well be fucked but that's even more reason for us to stay there until it's been given time and effort to improve, if you read the articles above and watched that documentary you'd know why I'm saying this. I thought/think the invasion of Iraq was a monumental error but the invasion of Afghanistan was necessary. The reason? Because the Russians fucked up the country so bad that the Taliban seemed like a sane solution to a lot of the people there and it was turned into a hell on earth for anyone who wasn't suckered into their cult of death. (If you think 9/11 was a conspiracy and want to start bringing that into the conversation here, as per the rules, I suggest taking it to the 9/11 forum instead...) In addition to an unimaginable humanitarian catastrophe that would unfold - worse than http://www.rawa.org/reports.html">the one that occurred when Russia left - if we leave now, there is a real danger that more and worse versions of 9/11 could be planned and carried out from Afghanistan.

Click here to learn more about...
http://www.rawa.org/recent4.htm">

[elocs]

5. Let's be realistic. Obama is not going to take us out of Afghanistan NOW or anytime soon.

At least there is a connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 unlike Iraq, so the two are not exactly the same.

What is "winnable" in Afghanistan needs to be narrowly and specifically defined. It's too bad that the choices are drawn between either being totally in or totally out. Why can't we think outside the box rather than doing things the way they have always been done? The Afghan people should be at least as motivated in keeping their country as the Taliban is in taking it over. Why can't we tell them that we'll provide them with as many weapons and as much intelligence as they need and they can fight for their country themselves? If they are not willing to do that and the Taliban is not a superior numerical force maybe they do not want their own country badly enough. If they are unwilling to fight for it, how will they hold it after we are gone?

How about paying the poppy farmers not to grow poppies and to grow something else instead rather than destroying the crop, letting them starve, and making them our enemies. As one of their governors said, send tractors, not tanks.

How about simply under the table paying Pakistan to give up Bin Laden and giving them financial aid after that? In the end all of this may be cheaper than doing what we are now and what has always been done.

[SpartanDem]

7. been there done that

We basically tried that approach early on in WW2 and it didn't work. I'm not saying the Afghans shouldn't be involved in fighting for their own country, but I think that is best done by helping build their armed forces.

I agree with you on poppy farmers that we needed to supporting them more. As for Bin Laden, Pakistan doesn't even control that part of country were Bin laden is supposed to hiding and they just caved in to Taliban. I really have to wonder if they'd willing to do it and if they were if Bind Laden wouldn't be tipped an off by their less than trustworthy military.

[Turborama]

10. Kick because it's very important that this essential point isn't missed...

[MissMillie]

11. NPR did a good report relating to this this morning

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100942657

Within a few weeks, the administration of President Barack Obama will unveil a series of reviews on Afghanistan and Pakistan.....

The reviews offer a chance for fresh thinking on how to handle the deteriorating security situations in these countries. Dozens of experts and analysts have been tapped for their input.

One of those is David Kilcullen, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. Kilcullen approaches the dual challenge of Afghanistan and Pakistan from a different starting point than many others grappling with the problem.

For starters, Kilcullen is Australian — a former army officer and a counterinsurgency expert. The 41-year-old has a doctorate in the anthropology of guerrilla warfare. He also was a senior adviser to Gen. David Petraeus during the early days of the military surge in Iraq in 2007.

"We have a longer-term problem about how we've been conducting the operation to date," he says. "Afghanistan is really on the point of significant downturn this year."

Local Connections, Isolating The Enemy

Kilcullen says routing Taliban extremists from their sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan is critical to success in Afghanistan. But he says the U.S. also will have to assess — and change — the way a new influx of U.S. troops is fighting the war in Afghanistan.

Kilcullen says the current U.S. approach is "enemy-centric."

"We are chasing the bad guys around Afghanistan, and that leaves the population feeling unprotected and insecure," he says.

Kilcullen says the militants are elusive, and don't have to hold and defend territory. He says that instead of hunting the extremists, the U.S. would do better to focus its efforts on providing the local population with better security as a way to gain their cooperation and trust.

(more at the link)

[Turborama]

12. I agree 100% percent with what he's saying and

am glad that he's got the ear of the White House. This is exactly the sort of logic that's been missing and I really hope it's taken onboard by VP Biden and President Obama.

Thank-you for sharing this piece, I've been starting to think that everyone's for the 'cut and run' option. We need more debate on solutions such as this instead of just thinking about taking the easy way out...

[ihavenobias]

13. Kick, interesting discussion. n/t