Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Sen. Kerry Warns Against Afghan Build-Up

An influential Democratic senator has warned against deploying tens of thousands more U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Amid growing speculation and partisan bickering over what President Barack Obama will do about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, an influential Democratic senator Monday warned against deploying tens of thousands more U.S. troops there.

Just back from a diplomatic triumph in Kabul, Sen. John Kerry criticised a military proposal to send some 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan as part of a major counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign to defeat the Taliban as “go(ing) too far, too fast”.

“We have already begun implementing a counterinsurgency strategy – but I believe that right now it needs to be as narrowly focused as possible,” he told the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) here. “We must be very wary of over-extension. And I am particularly concerned about the potential for us to be viewed as foreign occupiers.”

Afghanistan’s government, he went on, should – with U.S. help – make major advances in building up its own military and security forces and in providing better governance to its people before Washington commits substantially greater numbers of troops to the fight.

“Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the president should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative,” he said.

At the same time, he rejected what he called a “narrow counterterrorism (CT) mission” – initially favoured by Vice President Joseph Biden, according to published reports – that would permit the administration to draw down the roughly 68,000 U.S. troops who are currently deployed to Afghanistan and rely on a strategy of drone and Special Forces strikes against leaders of al Qaeda and allied groups.

“We all see the appeal of a limited counterterrorism mission – and no doubt it is part of the endgame. But I don’t think we’re there yet,” he said. “A narrow mission that cedes half the country to the Taliban could lead to civil war and put Pakistan at risk.”

Moreover, he added, “we need boots on the ground” to obtain the intelligence needed to track down terrorist targets.

Kerry’s speech comes at a critical moment in the ongoing public and internal administration debate over U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, a debate that is certain to become more intense after Monday’s crashes in two separate incidents of three U.S. helicopters.

A total of 11 troops and three anti-drug agents were killed in what was the single deadliest day for U.S. forces in Afghanistan in more than four years.

It also comes in the wake of an extended trip by Kerry to Kabul where he reportedly played a major role in persuading President Hamid Karzai to accept a run-off election next month against his main challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah.

That success, which was widely noted in the mainstream media, will likely give him additional influence both among his fellow-Democrats in Congress, who appear split on Afghanistan, and within the Obama White House with which he has consulted closely over the past 10 months.

Obama has been deliberating for more than a month on a bleak analysis of the situation in Afghanistan submitted in August by his top military commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The review argued that only a large-scale COIN campaign designed to provide security in key population centres and accelerate the training of Afghan forces can reverse the momentum that has been running in the Taliban’s favour for the past several years.

While McChrystal’s report, which was leaked to the Washington Post in September, did not state explicitly how many U.S. troops would be needed to accomplish the mission, insiders suggested that the general and his immediate superior, the chief of the Central Command (Centcom), Gen. David Petraeus, were hoping for a total of at least 100,000.

Since the leak, most Republican leaders have called on Obama, who has held a series of meetings on Afghanistan with his top national security advisers over the last several weeks, to urgently adopt McChrystal’s proposed strategy and any number of troops that he requests.

Last week, former Vice President Dick Cheney accused Obama of “dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger”, a charge that has since been taken up with enthusiasm by right-wing and neoconservative hawks in Congress and the media.

In his remarks Monday, Kerry took on Cheney directly, noting that it was the former vice president “who in 2002 told America that ‘the Taliban regime is out of business, permanently’.”

“Make no mistake,” he went on, “because of the gross mishandling of this war by past civilian leadership, there are no great options for its handling today.”

Kerry praised McChrystal, noting that “he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area”, specifically in the Pashtun regions of eastern and southern Afghanistan where the Taliban is strongest.

“But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast,” he said, adding, “We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity – the other two legs of counterinsurgency.”

“[D]ecisions about additional troops,” he said, should be based on an assessment of three conditions.

“First, are there enough reliable Afghan forces to partner with American troops – and eventually to take over responsibility for security?” he asked, stressing the importance of “on-the-job training… as soon as possible”.

“The second question… is, are there local leaders we can partner with? We have to be able to identify and cooperate with tribal, district and provincial leaders who command the authority to help deliver services and restore Afghans’ faith in their own government,” he said.

“Third, is the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population?” he asked, noting that, “Progress on this front is expected in the coming months with a significant influx of U.S. civilians and efforts to work with the Afghan government to implement reforms.”

“[A]bsent an urgent strategic imperative,” he said, “we need a valid assessment by the president and other appropriate civilian authorities – not just the military – that those three conditions will be met before we consider sending more soldiers and Marines to clear new areas.”

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.