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

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share