The Blog

To Win or Lose in Afghanistan?

2:01 PM, Jun 9, 2011 • By DANIEL HALPER
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

AEI's Danielle Pletka puts the war in Afghanistan in perspective, in a column for the Daily Beast

The choices for America in Afghanistan are simpler than they appear in the fog of political debate: We can win or we can lose. Definitions can be debated, but in short, victory will mean that Afghanistan will not be a sustainable operational haven for al Qaeda, its political and terrorist affiliates, or a base for aggression against the U.S. and its allies.

Two years ago when he announced a troop surge into Afghanistan, President Obama promised "troops will begin to come home" in July 2011. The White House is now reportedly engaged in an internal tussle to decide just how many troops should be part of that summer drawdown. As usual, self-serving counsel is being ladled out generously by politicos of left and right concerned by cost, endgame, and most of all, their own political prospects come November 2012. Ditto the White House, which is divided between partisans of Barack Obama (the president) and Barack Obama (the candidate)....

If the United States chooses not to lose the war in Afghanistan, victory will not look like Germany or South Korea. But that should not be our aspiration. We cannot "nation-build" Afghanistan into a state it will not soon be—but it can be better. The surge that Barack Obama ordered so courageously in 2009 is working, and we must make every effort to ensure that, like the Iraqis, Afghans turn away from what Obama calls "the perils of political violence for a democratic process." In 2006, there was little faith that Iraq could ever work. In 2011, too many are pressing to choose defeat in Afghanistan. They may be hiding behind the economy, bin Laden's dead body, or a half-dozen other euphemisms for "surrender," but make no mistake: That is their aim.

Whole thing here.

Jeffrey Dressler, of the Institute for the Study of War, analyzes the "Consequences of Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan."

 One month after the successful U.S. operation that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, the defense community and media have shifted their attention to the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan slated to take place this summer. The administration has begun to indicate that the withdrawal number may be higher than expected, which some applaud and others fear may turn the tide against the visible progress underway in Afghanistan. In the coming weeks, President Obama will consider the recommendation of his senior military commanders on the future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. It is important for the President’s decision to be guided by his commanders’ understanding of current realities on the ground, as much remains be done in order to solidify recent gains and to continue to reverse the insurgency’s momentum on a national scale.

The troop surge that began in 2009 has enhanced the coalition’s ability to control terrain. Moreover, progress against insurgents in the south and the killing of Osama bin Laden has breathed new life into a campaign now in its tenth year. Yet, the fight against al-Qaeda and other insurgents is far from complete. In an op-ed published Tuesday in the Wall Street Journal, ISW’s President, Dr. Kimberly Kagan, and Dr. Frederick Kagan expanded on this view, explaining that as the fight approaches its peak, progress remains fragile and under assault, and every available soldier is needed to maintain momentum and cement the progress ISAF has achieved since 2009. Whether the President’s final decision calls for a modest or significant troop withdrawal, the gains that have been achieved are still reversible, and U.S. and coalition forces must still take on significant hard combat challenges, particularly in Afghanistan’s south and east.

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 19 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers