4-01-09, 9:36 am

Over strong criticisms from many in its antiwar constituency, the Obama administration last week announced a second increase in the number of US troops in Afghanistan. The announcement came as part of its new, broader strategy to 'disrupt, defeat and dismantle Al Qaeda and its safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan and prevent its return,' using a variety of tactics beyond just military means.

In a televised speech Friday, March 27, President Obama sharply distinguished his policy in Afghanistan from the past administration. 'Many people in the United States ... have a simple question,' he said. 'What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer.'

'I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future,' Obama stated.

Military side

In outlining this new strategy, Obama explained that the military mission of US troops would shift from combat to training Afghan military and police units. Further, the administration identified regular military units, rather than National Guard or Reserve units, to make up the surge of 17,000 troops announced last January. The units for the 4,000 new troops announced this week have not yet been selected. Some expect this final group to be selected from the 10th Mountain and the 82nd Airborne US Army Divisions, many of whose soldiers would likely be on the fifth combat deployment since 2001.

According to some media reports, Obama resisted calls by some in the Pentagon for a massive surge of 30,000 troops to go to Afghanistan.

The administration has set a goal of boosting the Afghan army to 134,000 members and the national police to 82,000 to take control of the country's security needs by 2011.

Obama emphasized the security mission of US troops as the starting point of their return home. 'That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home,' he said.

Civilian efforts

On the diplomatic and economic side of the efforts in the region, the Obama administration has identified the struggle against Al Qaeda and to stabilize the region as one that links Afghanistan and Pakistan together.

Denis McDonough, a White House national security affairs spokesperson, stated, 'The president underscored very clearly today that this is a regional challenge that we have to confront together.' The two countries 'present one challenge,' he added.

A coherent strategy is the fundamental difference between the Obama administration's policy for the region and Bush's. 'We saw, when we came into office, a situation adrift, a strategy that had not been clearly annunciated over the course of several years and a lack of focus on this central challenge,' McDonough emphasized.

The previous administration had been diverted by Iraq, but now the president will be able 'to bring all elements of our national power to resolve this situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan,' said McDonough.

The administration created a 'contact pool' of regional and international powers, including Iran, Saudia Arabia, China, India, Russia and the UAE, in addition to the two countries concerned, it hopes will be a part of talks to resolve questions of financing, diplomacy and economic development. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has met with representatives from a number of these countries this week to open the channels of communication.

Obama called for passage of a bipartisan measure currently in the Senate that will boost aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion for the next five years. 'Pakistan,' McDonough said, 'is a democratic country worthy of our support.' The goal is to strengthen Pakistan's central government, enable it to fight corruption and help shift the focus of its military apparatus away from India and the Kashmir question towards controlling its borders with Afghanistan and joining the fight against Al Qaeda.

For Afghanistan, the administration also urged the passage of a bill in the House that would create Reconstruction Opportunity Zones so that goods exported from that country would be treated as 'duty free' goods. The aim is to boost economic development of the country apart from the pervasive illegal drug trade. The administration has also proposed 'significant' amounts of money in its budget for economic development and other civilian projects in Afghanistan aimed at stabilizing the country.

The administration further appears to be launching a project not dissimilar to that promoted in Iraq with the 'awakening councils.' While this term has not been used specifically, McDonough told reporters that the administration believes that many fighters who have joined the so-called Taliban groups have done so mainly out of financial motives. A program of 'political reconciliation,' he indicated, might be able to sway them to shift loyalties to the Afghanistan government and the project of stabilization. The administration is looking for ways to split these groups and individuals from 'the hardcore elements of the Taliban in an effort to ... divide and conquer,' McDonough added.

Metrics and benchmarks

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, whose committee will oversee funding for many of these projects, stated this week that he sees the administration's plan as being 'on the right track.' After talks with the White House and Pentagon, Levin added that any new funds, troops or efforts should be accompanied by specific benchmarks for success, otherwise they could lose his support.

This week, Levin added that he could not support increased financial aid to Pakistan without more detail about how the money will be spent and what kind of accounting and transparency would be made to ensure the money is well-spent.

In a teleconference with reporters Friday, March 27th, McDonough said, 'Chairman Levin is someone with whom we consulted very closely on this issue. He's obviously a real leader in the Congress. He's been a real leader in focusing in on our challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and has been a real leader in addressing our military families and our troops so that they have what they need. He's a terrific ally for the troops.'

McDonough added that there are five 'metrics for success' in Afghanistan and Pakistan:

1) Making progress in disrupting and defeating Al Qaeda and its safe havens. 2) Aid to Pakistan to convince that country's government to 'dedicate resources to fighting the insurgency.' 3) 'Metrics that we put on ourselves, that is to say how we are spending taxpayer resources,' i.e. transparency of how US resources are used. 4) stated goals about increases in Afghan military and police forces.

Other than these 'metrics,' McDonough could not yet provide detailed benchmarks of success. These 'metrics' have huge holes that could allow for an indefinite occupation. For example, does an increase in security forces in Afghanistan automatically translate into real security? Do the creation of 'duty free' zones translate into sustainable economic development? Does aid for Pakistan translate automatically into its commitment to shared goals in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.

A new quagmire?

The vagueness of these so-called metrics for success could also pose problems for the Obama administration in sustaining congressional and or rebuilding popular support for continued US military involvement in Afghanistan. Already, a majority of Americans disapprove of what once popular military action in that country. Without specific benchmarks for success, Levin has suggested, the US could get mired indefinitely in the conflict with no end in sight and no means of getting out. Such goals should be defined at the outset.

Core forces that supported Obama in the election have already expressed opposition to an expanded US military role in Central Asia. In a press statement for United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) released immediately following the president's announcement last week, Jim Fine said, 'President Obama's new strategy includes constructive commitments to regional and international diplomacy and civilian development, but the President has also committed the US to aggressive new military tactics and a wider war that could easily spiral out of control and overwhelm the constructive elements of the plan.'

Leslie Cagan, national coordinator for UFPJ, added, 'With the $2 billion a month already being spent on the war in Afghanistan, the administration's proposals endanger the ability of the Obama administration to respond to the intensifying financial crisis. We must flood the White House with calls today to voice our opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan, when just the opposite is needed – our troops should be brought home now.'

UFPJ, the country's largest coalition of peace organization, called for rejecting the expansion of military efforts in Afghanistan and for the return of US troops. Instead, the administration should focus on civilian and diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis in Afghanistan, the group urged. As part of this effort, UFPJ has organized a 'march on Wall Street' scheduled for April 4th to demand cuts in military spending, an end to military action in Afghanistan and refocusing resources on the collapsing US economy.

Tom Andrews, who heads the Win Without War Coalition, which opposed the US invasion of Iraq, also stated last week that 'We want to be able to support the president and his efforts to protect the American people from the threat of al Qaeda. But the policy announced today will fail to do so and instead takes a significant step toward a perilous quagmire.”

In Andrews' view, while many of the non-military efforts to resolve the crisis in Afghanistan are laudable, it is likely that the military side of the strategy will undermine them. For example, why would Russia, China or Iran be too interested in supporting US-led military efforts that increase the number of US troops near their borders? If the presence of foreign troops and the actions that they take that have caused the deaths of many hundreds of Afghan and Pakistan civilians over the past months promote the Taliban-aligned insurgency, why would boosting those numbers promote political reconciliation in Afghanistan, Andrews wondered.

Needed: national dialogue

Other important national groups that took a strong stand for bringing and end to the war in Iraq, such as MoveOn.org, Veterans for America, and VoteVets.org, have either remained silent on Obama's Afghanistan policy or have urged support for it.

It is possible that many groups and individuals fear that differing with the president on this policy would be disloyal in a time when broad support for much of the president's agenda is needed. It is possible to urge the unity of all democratic forces and people's movements behind the president's domestic agenda, while opposing a short-sighted and costly adventure in Afghanistan.

Now is not the time for silence. Because so many American now oppose the war in Afghanistan, a national conversation on which direction to go in Afghanistan is needed more than ever. Civilian efforts that include expanded diplomacy and economic aid are laudable goals, but the US simply has no practical ability or ethical right to continue, let alone escalate, its military presence in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Promoting a national conversation in Congress, the major media and in our communities that figures out a new direction to lead the US military out of Afghanistan as soon as possible should be a major goal of the peace movement.