Streams

Afghanistan Review Shows Fragile Gains, Fragile Governments

Friday, December 17, 2010

President Barack Obama speaks about the US strategy for military and civilian operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan following a two-month review process of the nine-year war President Barack Obama speaks about the U.S. strategy for military and civilian operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan following a two-month review process of the nine-year war (Getty Images)

Welcome to Politics Bites, where every afternoon at It's a Free Country we bring you the unmissable quotes from the morning's political conversations on WNYC. This morning on The Brian Lehrer Show, NPR national security correspondent Rachel Martin reviewed the Obama administration's assessment of the war in Afghanistan.

At Thursday's press conference, President Obama used words like "fragile" and "reversible" to describe the military gains we've made in Afghanistan over the past year. Not the most encouraging evaluation of our strategy, especially at a time when the public is disproportionately discouraged: a recent poll shows that 60 percent of Americans think the Afghanistan war isn't worth fighting.

There are a number of complicating factors delaying our progress in the conflict, and there's a growing concern that despite the Obama administration's assurance, we will not be able to begin withdrawing troops by the July 2011 deadline they set for themselves. Rachel Martin said that of the loose ends left to tie, getting the Afghani government to take charge is the most crucial (and least talked about) benchmark.

The biggest issue that really wasn't addressed was the governance question. This is something officials have highlighted as a key component to success in Afghanistan, getting the Afghan government to the point where they can assume control of the security question so US and NATO forces can stand down. In order for this to happen, there has to be some kind of semblance of effective government to manage all of this, and that was not addressed in the review.

Silence doesn't bode well here. But it's not just the Afghan government that requires coalition direction. Pakistan's involvement is key to ending the war too, as the country's porous border with Afghanistan has provided safe haven for the retreating Taliban to regroup.

This is the big sticking point. No one can win this war so long as insurgents are allowed to cross over into Pakistan, regroup, and then go back over and wage attacks. Success in Afghanistan is contingent on getting rid of those safe havens.

As is the case in Afghanistan, it's necessary to get Pakistan's government—not the United States'—to take the reins. According to Martin, though, it's been a pretty tough sell so far.

They need the Pakistani government to take control of getting rid of those safe havens. But the Pakistanis have not seen this as in their own national interests. To them, they have a much longer horizon, they are preparing for a time when the US leaves and they need to keep their fingers in all kinds of pots. They haven’t been all that willing to crack down on the safe haven issue.

That puts our military in an extremely difficult position. We're being told that the Pakistani border needs to be secured and the Taliban rooted out, but that we shouldn't be the ones to do it. At the same time, Pakistan is dragging its feet on the issue, abdicating responsibility for dealing with the Taliban on the grounds that the government's situation is delicate enough already. Even without action on their part, Martin said it's clear that the US can't just take matters into its own military's hands.

Military officials have been very careful not to suggest that US boots would go on the ground across the border in Pakistan. Any suggestion that that would happen would not be welcome by the Pakistani government.

Further military involvement wouldn't be too welcome by Americans either, including some in the White House. Martin said that even though some of the war's most vocal opponents, such as Rahm Emanuel, have exited the Obama administration, there's still a contingent that's against a protracted counterinsurgency strategy. Only, they haven't had to come out and say it just yet. That's likely to change between now and the next yearly assessment of the war.

There are still those within the administration who publicly aren’t talking about it but privately suggest that they have reservations about it, but those are going to be brought to the fore probably close to the summer. They’ve been given a pass for now, the debate’s going to get really heated in the next few months, though.

Tags:

More in:

News, weather, Radiolab, Brian Lehrer and more.
Get the best of WNYC in your inbox, every morning.

Comments [4]

Tom from Toronto

Give me a break, there are already U.S. boots on the ground in Pakistan. Anyone heard of wikileaks?

Dec. 17 2010 11:41 AM
CE Connelly from Manhattan

I wonder if your guest has heard of any efforts being made by the US or its allies to try to settle the conflict in Kashmir. It seems if some progress could be made on this admittedly intractable conflict some of Pakistan's paranoia about India might be eased and the argument that Pakistan should fight the Taliban stronger. Control of Afghanistan seems so important to Pakistan because of their fear of Indian in Kashmir.

Dec. 17 2010 11:39 AM
Chuck Rettig from New Jersey

People have a very short memory. I have not lost one iota of the anger I felt on 9/11. People are now calling for leaving Afganistan, but the moment something happens against Americans and is rooted in that country, those very same people will proclaim that we never should have left. Our troops there keep us safe here. It is a simplistic view with many caveats, but it is the truth.

Dec. 17 2010 11:37 AM
Jeff Pappas from Ct.

Hi Brian,

I believe that the word WAR should not be used, especially by the Press.
A War is a conflict between Nation States, not what is happening over in Afghanistan
I think by continuing to mis- use and overuse this word we are all being irresponsible.
Please don't play into the Neocons new world order, even Obama has started to call it a Conflict.

Dec. 17 2010 11:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.

Sponsored

About It's A Free Country ®

Archive of It's A Free Country articles and posts. Visit the It's A Free Country Home Page for lots more.

Supported by

WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public.  Learn more at revsonfoundation.org.

Feeds

Supported by