Crux of Afgan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?

by Bunk | September 8, 2009 at 12:18 am

73 views | 2 Recommendations | add comment

The idea that a war can be won by means other than troop deployment, but instead with drones, missiles, CIA hit squads, and payouts to warlords in Afghanistan to distance themselves from Al Qaeda. What delusions are floating around America and Europe this week? It is true that this month has been hard. Troop deaths rose sharply, the election was not the demonstration of democracy the West had hoped for. Still with all this, to think a country like Afghanistan, and a organisation such as Al Qaeda can be beaten with these methods is madness. Allied forces are making massive inroads in Afghanistan. Their commitment is helping Pakistan start its fight against the Taliban. This squeeze on Al Qaeda is making the world a safer place. Commitment is what we need. For too long we let complacency get the better of us. Diplomacy has it's place no doubt. It is the far better option. But when there is no other option, for example after 9/11. Action, and commitment must be used. Big mistakes have been made in the War on Terror. There is no doubt about that. Afghanistan is a better country for the allied forces involvement. It will take strong leadership not to wilt under the political pressure. Commitment, and aims. We should know what they are. Too often they change with the weather. A free, safe, democratic, and educated Afghanistan is what we should be aiming for. If this requires more troops, then that is a fact we will have to face up to. Because that is the only way to curb terror is by showing Afghanistan a better path than the Taliban can give them.

News Analys By ERIC SCHMITT and SCOTT SHANE Published: September 7, 2009

WASHINGTON — Does the United States need a large and growing ground force in Afghanistan to prevent another major terrorist attack on American soil?

American soldiers took fire during a patrol in the Watapor Valley in Afghanistan's eastern Kunar province in July.

In deploying 68,000 American troops there by year’s end, President Obama has called Afghanistan “a war of necessity” to prevent the Taliban from recreating for Al Qaeda the sanctuary that it had in the 1990s.

But nearly eight years after the American invasion drove Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan, the political support for military action that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has faded. A war that started as a swift counterattack against those responsible for the murder of 3,000 Americans, a growing number of critics say, is in danger of becoming a quagmire with a muddled mission.

In interviews, most counterterrorism experts said they believed that the troops were needed to drive Taliban fighters from territory they had steadily reclaimed. But critics on the right and the left say that if the real goal is to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States, there may be alternatives to a large ground force in Afghanistan. They say Al Qaeda can be held at bay using intensive intelligence, Predator drones, cruise missiles, raids by Special Operations commandos and even payments to warlords to deny haven to Al Qaeda.

After all, they point out, the Central Intelligence Agency has killed more than a dozen top Qaeda leaders in the lawless Pakistani tribal areas, disrupting the terrorists’ ability to plot and carry out attacks against the United States and Europe.

Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University, said the alternatives would have at least as much chance of preventing attacks on the United States as a large-scale counterinsurgency effort, which he said would last 5 to 10 years, require hundreds of billions of dollars, sacrifice hundreds of American lives and have a “slim likelihood of success.”

Despite the Obama administration’s assertions that it has a new approach, “the truth is they want to try harder to do what we’ve been doing for the last eight years,” Mr. Bacevich said.

But most specialists on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, inside and outside the government, say terrorism cannot be confronted from a comfortable distance, such as by airstrikes or proxy forces alone. It may take years to turn Afghanistan into a place that is hostile to Al Qaeda, they say, but it may be the only way to keep the United States safe in the long term. Many agree with the classified strategy for a troop buildup that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has presented to Mr. Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in recent days.

They say a large American-led NATO ground force is needed to clear Taliban-held territory and hold it while instructors train sufficient, competent Afghan soldiers and police officers to secure those areas. The allied force, the argument goes, will buy time and space to help the Afghans build more effective local, provincial and national governments, and create some semblance of an economy. Since many polls in Afghanistan show little support for the Taliban, a stable, peaceful country would not be likely to become a home for terrorists.