Welcome to the busy season. The holidays are the time of year where it seems there is always something going on or someplace we have to be, leaving us little time to sit down and enjoy a little quality television. That was the case for me last night. I had to run out to Lowes to purchase some items for a holiday party this weekend, so I missed President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan. Fortunately, I was able to read much of it today, and wanted to go over his three-point plan and provide my thoughts on it.

First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.

The 30,000 additional troops that I’m announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest possible pace — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They’ll increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.

Because this is an international effort, I’ve asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we’re confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. And now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We’ll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

In general, this is a carbon copy of what worked during the surge of troops in Iraq, and it shouldn’t be a surprised. Generals McCrystal and Petreaus helped generate the winning strategy in Iraq, and it should have similar results in Afghanistan. The difference in the latter is that the nation hasn’t really had a central army in a national sense, but more of regional armies under the control of warlords. In Iraq, both before and during Saddam Hussein’s rule, a large central army had already existed, so the concept of a national force wasn’t foreign to the public.

The success in the Iraqi troop training didn’t come without years of troubles though. Many of the original officers lacked the knowledge and experience to lead new recruits, leading to forces deserting their positions, especially when under fire. For years US forces were embedded with Iraqi forces to provide the “glue” and experience to keep the units together and fight effectively. The US had the same problems with Afghan forces.

The Bush Administration tried to swell the Afghan army to 134,000 units, but continued to suffer from poor recruiting and training. France and other NATO nations have provided troops to help train the new Afghan army while US and other allied forces battled the terrorists across the country. Will we be able to train thousands of reliable new recruits and leaders each week to build a large enough Afghan army to police their own nation? Obama thinks we will be able to do this by 2011.

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.

This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.

The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They’ve been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.

This is easier said than done. Unlike Iraq, where the US had an active role in Iraqi government policy making until national elections were held, we do not have that tool in Afghanistan. So being able to influence Karzai and the Afghan government to reduce corruption will be very difficult. One of the tools that we do have to our ability, and that was used successfully in helping to calm Iraq, is our ability to financially compensate those who cooperate. Of course, some have argued that this is just another form of corruption, and we should not be paying off foreign nationals for “doing what’s right.” Obama says “the days of providing a blank check are over.” Is he referring to the actual financial support for cooperation, or simply public support? And if there won’t be financial support, what methods will be used to entice these tribal elements to support a central government and a central cause that will keep the terrorists out of the country?

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.

In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who’ve argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.

In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistan people must know America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.

I’m a bit confused by what Obama is saying here. “In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly.” What does he mean? We have been an active supporter of Pakistan dating back to President Pervez Musharraf to the current President Asif Ali Zardari. While the relationship between the US and Pakistan during the start of the war on terror was tentative (due to public opinion against the US, tensions with India, and the influence of the Taliban to the Northwest), it grew over time. Musharraf offered three bases for US operations in exchange for financial support to help offset their massive debt. In addition, US forces reinforced Pakistan’s security at their nuclear facilities and arsenal sites. It wasn’t until after the assassination of the newly elected President Benazir Bhutto that public opinion turned on the Taliban and the successor went on the offensive within Pakistan’s borders. The US has provided intelligence and financial assistance to the Pakistan government to support their military efforts.

For the most part, it doesn’t seem to be much of a major change in the general strategy since 2008. The biggest difference will be the additional troops (totaling over 50,000 additional units since 2008) and the pulling of forces away from the outposts and back towards the center of the nation. This mirrors a lot of the surge strategy implemented in Iraq a year earlier.

I don’t have much of an issue with Obama’s strategy outline other than his goal of starting to remove troops by 2011. Since it will take months to move the new troops in and refocus resources in the field, he is anticipating a rapid growth of the Afghan army and a quick turn of events on the ground to create a more stable situation where troops can start coming home. Obama does note that this deadline does depend on the conditions on the ground, a common phrase used by Bush and Petreaus over the years, though I am sure he hopes that Afghanistan sees a similar change in the security situation that was realized in Iraq.

My only other major issue with Obama’s policy is the length of time it took to enact this. The President was deeply involved with the issues on the ground and the current strategies back in 2008 when he was the Democratic nominee and then later President-elect. Back in March he announced a change in strategy, and then eight months later he announces another change. While there was a lot of politics involved (an article for another day), the surge policy could have been implemented a lot sooner. Yes, Obama has already authorized an additional 20,000 troops to be deployed to Afghanistan earlier in the year, he could have easily asked for more. Since it takes time for troops to be deployed (along with their gear), we could have started to see the additional troops already on the ground and making an impact rather than six months from now.

Hopefully things will turn around and we can start to bring our troops home sooner rather than later. Over the years, friends and family have spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan working hard to create stable, terrorist-free nations in the goal of improving our own national security. Fortunately, most of them have returned home safe and physically unharmed. With the holiday season in full swing, our troops and contractors safety weighs heavily on my mind, as well as the emotions and stress that their families feel while their loved ones are in harms way. I wish the President and our troops the best of luck with this latest strategy.

The full transcript of Obama’s speech on Afghanistan can be found here.

Bookmark and Share

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!