How to Waste a Decade in Afghanistan

For Immediate Release   
Contact: Maggie Rackl   (202) 293-5550 x205   press@understandingwar.org

Leaving a bare-bones U.S. presence will risk a return of the Taliban—and civil war.

By Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan

Originally published in The Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2013

At the White House on Friday, President Obama will meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Although Mr. Karzai will presumably take up his continuous complaints that America has "imposed" corruption on his country, the more vital subject for both parties will be the size of the U.S. military footprint beyond 2014.

Administration officials are already leaking that the U.S. presence will be smaller than that requested by Gen. John Allen. The U.S. commander in the region has said that a force of 6,000 to 20,000 troops is needed. The White House has floated that 3,000 to 4,000 may be sufficient.

The divergence mirrors a more general disjunction in U.S. policy and perceptions regarding Afghanistan. Americans think the war is going badly, and many think it is hopelessly lost. But the Obama administration says that the process of "transitioning" responsibility for security to the Afghan military is going well enough to justify dramatic reductions in American forces this year and after 2014.

Has the president decided to cut his losses or does he actually think that the U.S. will have succeeded in Afghanistan at the end of his second term? Does it even matter?

Success in Afghanistan has always meant driving al Qaeda out and preventing it from returning. The U.S. cleared al Qaeda from the country in 2001-02 quickly, and with few forces. American efforts have since aimed at creating conditions in which Afghanistan will be able to keep al Qaeda out with limited international assistance. This part of the task has always been the most difficult. Yet it remains as vital today as it was in 2001.

Failing at it means letting al Qaeda regain its footing in the land from which it launched the most devastating terror attack against the U.S. in history...

...If a much-reduced U.S. force level is announced, Afghans will say that the Americans have abandoned their country. They will be right. With a drastically reduced U.S. presence, the Afghan government and army will fracture, warlords will begin fighting each other and the insurgents and terrorists in ungoverned spaces. The conditions will be ideal for al Qaeda's return. That's failure. And it will matter.

Read the entire opinion editorial at The Wall Street Journal.

To speak with ISW President Dr. Kimberly Kagan, please contact Maggie Rackl at mrackl@understandingwar.org or at (202) 293-5550 x205.

For more, visit www.understandingwar.org and join us on Twitter and Facebook.

###

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.

ISW Discusses the Surge in Afghanistan with Recent Commanders

Institute for the Study of War ~       For Immediate Release ~

Washington, D.C. – On November 30, 2012, the Institute for the Study of War welcomed Major General (Promotable) James Huggins and Lieutenant Colonel (Promotable) J.B. Vowell to The Army and Navy Club to discuss the effects of the surge in Afghanistan and the challenges that remain.  

 

Huggins expressed hopes that Afghanistan is heading in the right direction saying, “I firmly believe that the Afghan security forces are on the right path, on the right azimuth.  I believe that the strategy we’re executing in accordance with the surge plan from ’09 is achieving the effects that we wanted it to.  It’s just that we have adjusted troop strengths, we have adjusted timelines, and we are moving as fast as we can and our soldiers are doing incredible work there.”

 

Huggins oversaw the retrograde of approximately eleven thousand forces from his area of responsibility, leaving two Stryker Brigade Combat Teams where originally there had been six BCTs.  “[A]s we downsize[d] to two Stryker brigade combat teams when I left, I told them [my higher headquarters] that was the bare minimum I think we could use and still conduct the mission as it is prescribed today.”

 

He acknowledged that difficulty remains, but stressed the importance of continuing the fight. “We face some tough decisions in what’s going to happen in the future, but I would reiterate as long as we can continue to work off of conditions that we are achieving with our Afghan security partners, to continue to cement the hard-fought gains and the sacrifices we’ll be in pretty good shape.”

 

LTC Vowell, former commander of Task Force No Slack in Kunar, Afghanistan, discussed the difficult operating environment in that province, where al-Qaeda and its affiliates continue to operate, and stressed the importance of continuing engagement in Afghanistan.

 

“I’m very happy with the mission that No Slack did, and I think there’s hope for the future in Afghanistan but I’m cautious as well that it could be reversed…We could lose what we’ve gained so far if we withdraw from our gains too precipitously and we don’t continue to support the Afghan government and the region in the roads ahead.”

Watch full video of the event and read transcripts here.

For media inquiries, please contact Maggie Rackl at mrackl@understandingwar.org
or press@understandingwar.org
(202) 293-5550 x205

For more, visit www.understandingwar.org  and join us on Twitter and Facebook.

###

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.

Crimes and Misdemeanors

By Burt Prelutsky

As I sit here, I have no idea how things will play out for Charles Rangel and Maxine Waters, although I find it highly unlikely that either of them will end up in a congressional trial, no matter how much the defendants claim they wish to have the air cleared. When Nancy Pelosi insisted that under the Democrats, the swamp that is Capitol Hill would be drained, she should have kept in mind that after such a draining it’s not treasure chests and fields of four-leaf clovers that are uncovered, but creepy, crawly things.

Although I have no use for either of the two Democrats being investigated, I have a special loathing for Rep. Waters. For one thing, even after a story in the San Jose Mercury was shown to be a hoax, she persisted in claiming it was the C.I.A. that had introduced crack cocaine into black communities. She also championed the teaching of Ebonics in California schools. So it figured that as soon as the Congressional Ethics Committee targeted her, she would insist it was all the fault of political racists, even though half the members of the committee are liberals. On the other hand, back in the 90s, when it was Newt Gingrich who was charged with ethics violations, Rep. Waters couldn’t contain her glee, as she happily announced, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” And vice versa, Rep. Waters.

Still, I find it odd that neither she nor Mr. Rangel, nor the mainstream media for that matter, see anything even slightly racist about belonging to the Black Congressional Caucus, a group that denied membership to Rep. Stephen Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, simply because he’s white even though his district is 60% black!

For my part, I can’t figure out how the Ethics Committee determines whom to target. The way I see it, they could probably go after every single member of the House, including themselves, with the expectation of striking gold. Or perhaps I should say striking dirt. I’m reminded of the NCAA. Every once in a while, they decide to penalize a college for infractions involving bribes and other perks bestowed by over-zealous alumni associations on student athletes. The truth is, no matter how good the football or basketball player is, he is going to join the professional ranks in a few years. Thus, the only way to ensure that a college team is going to remain a national power year after year, decade after decade, is to entice the best high school players in the country. Although the colleges aren’t above using attractive, obliging coeds as lures, nothing beats cash on the barrelhead. Back when I was a kid, I would hear the wise guys say that one All American jock after another had to take a cut in pay when he left college and turned pro. Such, alas, is not the case when it comes to professional politicians.

Something I’ve never understood is how permissive America is when it comes to acts of treason. For the life of me, I don’t understand why PFC Bradley Manning and Wikileaks chief honcho, Julian Assange, aren’t on trial for their lives. However these two punks feel about the war in Afghanistan, there can be no justification for letting the Taliban know which Afghan citizens have cooperated with the U.S. military. What makes their activities all the more reprehensible is that they believe they command the moral high ground. It is a delusion shared by those who oppose all wars, those who oppose capital punishment and, of course, by Jane Fonda.

Whenever I see career politicians, I feel my gorge rising. The fact that these sloths, whose main activity is deciding how to waste other people’s money, insist on calling themselves public servants and get to hold fund-raising testimonials on their own behalf is all the more galling. I have been to a few of those events and it’s a good thing that the food is so unappetizing because, otherwise, it would be impossible to keep one’s dinner down. Even if you skip the over-cooked chicken, you’d have to have a cast-iron constitution to stomach the blatant hypocrisy as you listen to cronies and flunkies enumerate the politician’s alleged virtues in a way denied everyone who hasn’t first had the decency to die.

Here in California, we have more rotten politicians per capita than any other state in the nation. One of the worst has been Jerry Brown. He is presently running for governor, a job he has held in the distant past. This creep has been recycled more often than a plastic bottle. Even though he’s 72 years old, he has never held an actual job in his entire life. He began his current campaign by announcing that his opponent, Meg Whitman, had a great deal in common with Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. His reason was that she had a lot of her own money to spend on her campaign. It seems to me that’s like comparing Charlie Chaplin’s Little Tramp persona to Adolf Hitler because they both had tiny moustaches. But that’s par for the liberal course.

Jerry Brown also had the nerve to claim that Ms. Whitman was going to use the governorship as a steppingstone to the presidency. That’s not a crime where I come from. But in any case, it’s an odd insult coming from the man who used his own governorship to run for president in ’76, ’80 and ’92.

The fact remains that over the past 50 years, Brown has run for president, senator, governor, chairman of the California Democratic Party, state attorney general, California secretary of state, L.A. Community College District Board of Trustees and mayor of Oakland. The truly weird thing is that, more often than not, he’s won those races, even though in a personality contest with a clam, a cobblestone and a tin can, Brown would come in a distant fourth.

The fact remains that the man who was dubbed “Governor Moonbeam” by the late Chicago columnist, Mike Royko, has spent his entire adult life running for everything but the bus.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post

Assessment

Today's cartoon can be seen as a serious assessment of the situation ...or as a blatant grab for a laugh. Personally, I find it funny, which explains the joke-telling expression on the face of the guy delivering the punchline in the last panel.
And your assessment of the Obama administration's record so far would be?

Resurrection Observance - 2009 -- Real Hope

Easter Special Edition - Vol. 09 No. 14

THE FOUNDATION

"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations. ... The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institution may be abused by human depravity. ... It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors." --George Washington

PATRIOT PERSPECTIVE

Resurrection Observance, 2009 -- Real Hope

By Mark Alexander

In just a few short days, spring had sprung in the mountains of East Tennessee. Most of the emerging flora, however, was then covered by a very late snowfall. "This," my children teasingly speculated, "must be global warming."

We live in an area of our great country where the seasons are well defined. Spring is my favorite. As March closes, we are treated to the miraculous emergence of life from the bleak winter cold. Each year at this time, I marvel at God's expression of splendid colors covering branches and grounds where the resurrection of life was awaiting its cue.

I am humbled to recount three additional examples of "splendid colors" that I chanced upon in recent days, each with a common but indissoluble bond between them.

Read the rest here: Resurrection Observance - 2009 -- Real Hope