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. Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), former chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is a leading ”pro-Israel” hawk in Congress.


Brigette Gabriel, an anti-Islamic author and activist, is the founder of the right-wing group ACT! for America.


The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the more effective U.S. lobbying outfits, aims to ensure that the United States backs Israel regardless of the policies Israel pursues.


Frank Gaffney, director of the hardline neoconservative Center for Security Policy, is a longtime advocate of aggressive U.S. foreign policies, bloated military budgets, and confrontation with the Islamic world.


Shmuley Boteach is a “celebrity rabbi” known for his controversial “pro-Israel” advocacy.


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.


Huntsman, the millionaire scion of the Huntsman chemical empire, is a former Utah governor who served as President Obama’s first ambassador to China and was a candidate for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

AIPAC has done more than just tolerate the U.S. tilt toward extreme and often xenophobic views. Newly released tax filings show that the country’s biggest pro-Israel group financially contributed to the Center for Security Policy, the think-tank that played a pivotal role in engineering the Trump administration’s efforts to impose a ban on Muslim immigration.


Print Friendly

It would have been hard for Trump to find someone with more extreme positions than David Friedman for U.S. ambassador to Israel.


Print Friendly

Just as the “bogeyman” of the Mexican rapist and drug dealer is used to justify the Wall and mass immigration detention, the specter of Muslim terrorists is being used to validate gutting the refugee program and limiting admission from North Africa, and Southwest and South Asia.


Print Friendly

Although the mainstream media narrative about Trump’s Russia ties has been fairly linear, in reality the situation appears to be anything but.


Print Friendly

Reagan’s military buildup had little justification, though the military was rebuilding after the Vietnam disaster. Today, there is almost no case at all for a defense budget increase as big as the $54 billion that the Trump administration wants.


Print Friendly

The very idea of any U.S. president putting his personal financial interests ahead of the U.S. national interest is sufficient reason for the public to be outraged. That such a conflict of interest may affect real U.S. foreign policy decisions is an outrage.


Print Friendly

The new US administration is continuing a state of war that has existed for 16 years.


RightWeb
share