New Afghanistan Policy Should Prioritize Troop Withdrawal (Political Affairs) 12/6/10
by: Political Affairs
December 6 2010
The "overinvestment of resources and attention in Afghanistan is out of alignment with core U.S. security interests in the region," says a new report from the Center for American Progress. In addition, the authors of the report urge the Obama administration to "refocus on the political and diplomatic components of its strategy while it transitions U.S. forces out of Afghanistan." Unfortunately the report doesn't address key elements of a plan for a drawdown offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., which would repeal the authorization for military action in Afghanistan and confine spending of taxpayer dollars to non-military activities and troop withdrawal.
According to the report, the U.S. and the countries of the region have a strong interest in a stable Afghanistan. The best means of achieving that goal is to begin a transition to Afghan sovereignty and assist with internal political and economic reforms that help build support for the country's government among broader sections of Afghan civil society.” The authors of the report note that "it will be simply futile for the United States and its NATO allies to wage continued war on behalf of a government that cannot consolidate domestic political support without indefinite massive international assistance." The goal should be to complete the transition by 2014.
The report urges the Obama administration to foster talks among the various parties in Afghanistan, encourage local control over economic and natural resources, and begin a diplomatic surge which brings together all the countries in the region to find solutions for both internal and external disputes. This non-military side of the policy should be combined with a reduction in "the U.S. military footprint."
"We believe that the current strategy is not advancing U.S. interests or stability in Afghanistan and beyond," said Caroline Wadhams, one of the report's authors and the Director for South Asia Security Studies at the Center for American Progress. The status quo "will [not] lead to a sustainable outcome in three, five, or even ten years."
Regional powers with specific concerns about the situation in Afghanistan include India, China, Russian, Iran and Pakistan. Disagreements over regional and international trade issues, economic development, and security concerns present the biggest obstacles to united action in the region. According to the report, however, each of these countries has a special interest in achieving a stable Afghan state. "Facilitating discussions on these concerns and interests should be a top priority for U.S. policy-makers and elevated within the strategy," the report's authors note.?
Of special importance to promoting stability is a plan to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan. At over 100,000 U.S. military personnel, this footprint "may bring some insurgents to the negotiating table in the short term, but it cannot address the core factors contributing to Afghanistan’s instability and therefore will not lead to a sustainable outcome without significant changes in the political arena and on the diplomatic stage."
In addition, the presence "of powerful foreign combatants" can have the "unintended consequence" of upsetting "balances of power … through the distortionary economic impacts of our bases, logistics networks, and other infusions of money into a very poor and fragmented society."
The report goes on to say that "insurgents exploit suspicions of and disillusionment with the international forces and their allies to unify their movement and recruit individuals to their cause."
This analysis unfortunately suggests that the thousands of civilian deaths, destroyed homes, and the general economic disruption resulting from foreign occupation are not the primary sources of Afghanistan’s internal instability. Instead, the authors of the report place the blame on Afghan leaders "who have few incentives to compromise and to exert leadership as long as a large foreign military presence remains, freezing an unsustainable dynamic in place."
In the end, the authors stress, "[a] large and indefinite U.S. military presence in Afghanistan is ultimately not a realistic option and it will not effectively advance U.S. national security interests." Citing the likelihood of violent blowback against U.S. interests or assets, the report notes that ongoing U.S. occupation "radicalizes individuals in the region, serves as a magnet for extremists around the world, and complicates our relationships with other important countries in the region who resent our presence in Afghanistan, including China, India, and Russia." An ongoing occupation "will continue to strain our military force and the U.S. economy and it will limit our ability to respond to other crises and threats globally."
As a recent editorial at PeoplesWorld.org points out, growing concern about the U.S. federal budget deficit could be alleviated with a rapid drawdown of U.S. military forces from that Afghanistan.
The Obama administration has announced its desire to stick to an agreement with the government of Afghanistan to begin troop withdrawal in 2011, a process it plans to complete after three years. While this quietly creates a timeline for withdrawal and a visible horizon for the end of the U.S.-led war there, a swifter, more definitive process could be put in place to bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and turn the process of economic development, nation-building, and peaceful co-existence over to Afghanistan and its regional neighbors.
One such plan introduced in the House of Representatives this past summer, is a bill authored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and co-sponsored by 30 Democratic house members entitled “A Responsible End to the War in Afghanistan Act.” This bill would essentially repeal congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan and require all funds appropriated for that action to be used for the safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops and defense contractors.
Earlier this month, Rep. Lee interpreted President Obama's preliminary statements on Afghanistan policy as a means of likely extending U.S. military involvement. "The President’s recent decision to extend the timeframe for the transfer of security responsibility to Afghan forces to at least 2014 has put us on the path to another decade of costly and counterproductive military occupation in Afghanistan," she said. “Enough is enough. This war is not in the national interest of the United States, nor is it supported by the majority of the American people.
With Republican control of Congress and the new right-wing dip in the political terrain, Lee's plan is unlikely to move forward, however. Emboldened by the recent midterm elections, Republicans – who want an endless occupation of Afghanistan – have even sharply criticized President Obama's recent policy reassessment.
Indeed, Republican Party opposition to a changed Afghanistan policy – one that includes a military drawdown and meaningful economic and political reforms like those suggested in the CAP report – seems to have as its cynical goal the fomenting of deeper divisions in the country in order to spark ongoing violence and prevent the implementation of meaningful solutions. Ironically, Republican demands to continue the occupation at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars added to the budget deficit over the next few years, comes just as that party is demanding more tax cuts for the rich, eli
Next Article