Saying We Have Options in Afghanistan Doesn't Make It So Posted by Patrick Barry

Ilan’s post on three strategic concepts for U.S. policy toward Afghanistan made for a stimulating read, but when it comes to the military component, I wonder whether his construct draws distinctions where there are none.  After all, three of the most prominent illustrations of the strategic concepts falling along Ilan’s policy spectrum all accept or endorse a short-term expansion of our military footprint under roughly similar time-frames.

First we have the ‘all-in’ approach.  I’d start by asking whether the basic premise of this plan isn't flawed at its core, since our troop commitments to Iraq, the strain on our military, the economic crisis, and competing strategic priorities make a limitless engagement of the kind described by Senators McCain and Lieberman completely unrealistic. An all-in style approach is probably the closest you can credibly get.

The strategy that comes closest to the all-in approach, while still being legitimate, is CAP's 10-year plan for Afghanistan.   In their latest report, CAP endorses a plus-up of 15,000 troops for Afghanistan (on top of the 17,000 already committed by the Obama administration, raising the total to 85,000) for a period of at least 18 months.  The report also lays out a set of medium term recommendation that suggest a large military footprint for a period of 3 - 5 years, but on this point, CAP's report is somewhat flexible. 

From there we jump to the minimalist strategy.  Les Gelb's minimalist plan (I'm leaving GAR out for reasons I'll touch on later) doesn't directly deal with troop numbers, but it does tacitly accept the Obama administration's already-stated intention to raise troop levels to 55,000.  Troops would engage in counter-insurgency operations with a plan to withdraw "after about three years." The minimalist timetable would therefore run concurrent to the first half of maximalist timetable, albeit with fewer troops and a hard commitment to withdraw. 

Finally we have Ilan's middle path, which contains a definite commitment to intensify military operations for the next 12 to 18 months.  During this period, there would be ongoing strategic revaluations, so that at the end of the timeframe, the Obama administration could determine whether the military operations had yielded positive outcomes, and whether future military involvement of any scale would improve the situation further.  This approach is similar to the beginning stages of the CAP strategy, but it leaves open a greater possibility for a shift in course militarily.

We essentially have three strategic concepts which supposedly offer a spectrum of options, yet on the issue of military presence, the three most prominent articulations of these concepts support or accept an increased military commitment for a period of roughly 18 months - 3 years.  Of course, there are qualifications - CAP's timetable for increased military involvement seems to be 3 years at minimum, the strategy voiced by groups such as Get Afghanistan Right, which could arguably be called minimalist, doesn't support a troop increase, etc.  But there does appear to be basic agreement across the spectrum set-up by Ilan that the U.S. should commit more troops to Afghanistan in the short-term. 

I suppose it’s possible that what I'm seeing is emlematic of a broad consensus among the different strategic perspectives on the contours of a military strategy for Afghanistan.  But I tend to think that there's actually a lot less space between the various plans outlined by Ilan than he recognizes. This is not an argument against adopting any of the strategies, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking they represent the full menu of options available to the U.S.

Comments

[Discount Marc Jacobs Handbag]

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference

[fake Tiffany Bracelet]

you have a TypeKey or TypePad account

[Gucci Bracelet]

Gucci Bracelet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[iedge]

The U.N. has an important role in Afghanistan on a range of issues supporting improved governance in a country where the government is widely seen as being ineffective, and it is the coordinator of economic assistance.