Obama's Afghanistan Surge: A Long War With an Uncertain Outcome

[tekisui]

Source: Time

The week spent on Capitol Hill by Administration officials explaining President Obama's Afghan surge has produced much predictable politicking. Republicans tried in vain to coax Gen. Stanley McChrystal into admitting their claim that Obama had denied him the resources he needs to win; and Democrats tried in vain to prod Kabul Ambassador Karl Eikenberry to reiterate his argument against a troop surge. Everyone stayed on message, but in explaining how the strategy might work, Generals McChrystal and David Petraeus made clear that U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan is not likely to end any time soon, or to produce a "victory" in the sense that Americans have used the term since World War II.

Deadlines and Timetables

By declaring an intention to begin drawing down U.S. troops in July 2011 as Afghan security forces begin to take charge, Obama's West Point speech was criticized for giving the Taliban reason to lie low and wait out the Americans. It also, some argued, did little to discourage U.S. allies from hedging their bets — Pakistan's continued coddling of the Afghan Taliban, and President Hamid Karzai's reliance on self-serving warlords.

But the congressional testimony of those who will implement Obama's strategy makes clear that July 2011 is only an aspirational deadline. The decisions on the timing and scale of any troop withdrawal will be entirely conditions-based, McChrystal made clear, and he won't hesitate to ask for more troops if he thinks the situation demands it. (He didn't think it would, he assured legislators.) Still, the idea that any significant drawdown will be possible in 18 months requires a leap of optimism, given the state-of-play on the ground.

Indeed, if the key to withdrawing U.S. troops is the readiness of Afghan forces to take over, President Karzai on Tuesday had some sobering news. With "maximum effort," he said in Kabul, his own army would "hopefully" be in a position to provide security for the country five years from now. And, he hastened to add, simple economics dictated that an Afghan army big enough to take over from the Americans would have to be paid for by Washington for another 15 to 20 years.

Discussing deadlines right now was pointless, Petraeus suggested on Wednesday. A year from now, he said, Washington will have a better idea of whether the strategy is working. In the interim, the CENTCOM chief warned, things will get worse before they get better, and nobody should expect rapid progress. "Success will require steadfast commitment and incur significant costs," McChrystal added. "The sober fact is that there are no silver bullets."

What "Winning" in Afghanistan Means

All the senior figures in the Administration, when asked, insist they're in Afghanistan to win. It was left to McChrystal to warn Congress not to expect 1945-style unconditional surrender by the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban may not even be defeated in the sense that Americans typically use the term — McChrystal himself preferred words such as "disrupt" or "degrade." The general clearly recognizes that the Taliban are part of the fabric of Afghan life, and are unlikely to be eliminated. Victory, he said at one point, "could be similar to politics, where you defeat the other party in an election but you don't wipe them out." At another point, he defined the goal of the mission as "to prevent from doing what they want to do," i.e. sweeping back to power in Kabul.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1946990,00.html?xid=rss-fullworld-yahoo#ixzz0Zfhx8cUC

[msongs]

1. certain outcome = billions $$ for war profiteers while innocent people die....as usual nt