CE Week #5: “A look at Obama’s Afghan options” Oct. 4th
by Robert Burns / Associated Press
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan, from pulling back to staying put to sending thousands more troops to fight the insurgency.
A look at the options and their implications for achieving Obama’s stated goal of defeating al-Qaida.
Getting Out
A full, immediate withdrawal of American forces does not appear to be in the cards, not the least because U.S. allies in NATO share the view that abandoning Afghanistan now would hand a victory to Islamic extremist forces such as the Taliban that are aligned in some respects with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Some argue that because the al-Qaida figures who were run out of Afghanistan when U.S. troops invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks are now encamped across the border in Pakistan, there is no point to a U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. A related school of thought holds that the very presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan adds to the country’s instability and fuels its insurgency. Obama has taken a different view. Less than two months ago he said, “If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”
Scaling Back
A less drastic alternative to a full-scale retreat is a partial pullback. A reduced U.S. force would stay mainly to train and advise the Afghan national army and police. U.S. special operations forces would continue their hunt for most-wanted extremist leaders in Afghanistan. Pilotless drones such as the armed Predator would take out al-Qaida figures on the Pakistan side of the border. This would essentially end the counterinsurgency mission of U.S. and NATO forces. The reasoning is that the fight is not worth the cost in blood and treasure, and al-Qaida is a more urgent priority. This counterterror option would amount to a reversal of the strategy Obama endorsed in March. In the view of military analysts Frederick and Kimberly Kagan, who favor an expanded counterinsurgency campaign, a shift to only training and counterterror operations would be a big mistake. They argue that it would empower the Taliban and al-Qaida, endanger remaining U.S. troops and diplomats and allow Islamic extremists to portray the U.S. pullback as a defeat for the forces of moderation.
Staying Put
One of those advocating no short-term change in the size of the U.S. force in Afghanistan is Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He argues for putting greater emphasis on training the Afghan security forces and accelerating their growth. In this approach, the counterinsurgency campaign against the Taliban would continue on course. Additional U.S. troops would be required for the training mission, but not for combat. The flow of equipment for the police and army would be expanded. More effort would be focused on persuading lower-level Taliban fighters to lay down their arms. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is calling for accelerated training of Afghan forces. But in his view, more combat troops also are required to retake the initiative from the Taliban, which now control or contest large parts of the country. Earlier efforts to speed up Afghan training stalled in part because of a lack of NATO trainers.
Ramping Up
This is the McChrystal plan, which he calls “a fundamentally new way of doing business.” In military parlance, it would be a classic counterinsurgency campaign that could last for years. It would mean sending more U.S. troops – perhaps as many as 40,000. The general says it would mean redefining the fight in ways that enable Afghans to regain control of their own country. McChrystal spelled out his reasoning in a report weeks ago to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who asked for a comprehensive assessment of the war effort when he removed McChrystal’s predecessor, Gen. David McKiernan, in May in search of “fresh thinking, fresh eyes.” McChrystal says there is no guarantee his approach will work. Critics worry that this escalation would only lead to others, creating a quagmire. But McChrystal argues that if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or is unable to counter international terrorist networks – then Afghanistan could again become a base for al-Qaida to launch an attack on the U.S. That’s just what Obama says must be avoided.
A. Why is Obama “considering a range of ideas for changing course in Afghanistan”? I thought that he wanted all of the troops pulled out and wanted no more fighting? I did not know that pulling out the troops now would hand a victory over to the Islamic extremist forces. McChrystal argues that if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban then Afghanistan could become a base for al-Qaida to launch an attack on the U.S. again. If Obama says must be avoided, why doesn’t he take charge and tell this McChrystal guy that he wants to deal with it another way?
B. I think that Obama needs to make a plan and stick with it. He needs to decide if he wants the troops out of Afghanistan or if he wants to continue this war. I think if we continue to send more troops, more people will continue to die, and the war will continue to be fought, and nothing will ever be solved. 40,000 troops is a lot to send. I don’t think the McChrystal plan would work.
C. What I don’t understand is why Obama is changing his mind. Why is he going from keeping the troops there to having them pulled out? And what is the McChrystal plan? Who made that up and why do they think it’s going to work?
A. This article explained very well the different aspects of advances with the war in Afghanistan in a great condensed way. However, I did not know that there were people who advocated for doing nothing in Afghanistan, considering the war seems to be declining in both popularity at the polls and in our success in pushing back insurgents.
B. Although I doubt it will happen, I think the best plan is to do a slow withdrawal of troops much like we are doing in Iraq. We need to realize that we’re in a war that currently has no end in sight. Being in a foreign land half way across the globe in which insurgents can disappear off the map into their surroundings seems eerily similar to the war in Vietnam. Ultimately, adding more troops to Afghanistan would merely increase the rate American’s are dying. Considering America is already regarded as the devil to the insurgents creating a larger presence of U.S. troops would be counter-productive as it would increase anti-American sentiment and cause more Afghani’s to become insurgents.
C. Although the article stated that Obama and McChrystal hope for more troops, and that Carl Levin supports staying put, who are the biggest promoters for the withdrawal of troops?
A. Because I do not fully understand the situation in Afghanistan, I learned about the pros and cons to all the different plans concerning US intervention. The various opinions and consequences considered to defeat al-Qaida were new to me. For example, Burns wrote of the different opinions of getting out of Afghanistan, stating that some consider getting out being surrender but on the other hand come consider it to be countering the instability of the nation.
B. In my opinion, I think that staying put with some characteristics from the scaling back plan is the best option for such a situation. Though “ramping up” seems to be the most direct way to achieve Obama’s goal of defeating al-Qaida, staying put has more practical long term effects. The counterinsurgency campaign would persist against the extremists as American troops strive to strike “lower-level Taliban fighters,” which would chip away at al-Qaida. It might be the only method to guarantee the collapse of the enemy. Likewise, as stated with the scaling back option, I think US troops should train the Afghan army and police to ensure the nation would be stable when the US completely pulls out. This is practical because if the US is fully successful and thus able to draw out, Afghanistan would have to be able to govern its people and ensure security. If they are not able to achieve this, there would have been no point to the war because it would be inevitable for another radical terrorist group to take over. Though ramping up might be the swiftest method to defeat al-Qaida and getting out is the most appealing option, staying put with some scaling back characteristics seems to be the most practical answer right now.
C. What was Obama’s primary plan concerning Afghanistan and how has that plan evolved since he became president? Also, what are the current conditions we are faced with in Afghanistan (how many troops do we have there, are we close to success, how powerful are the Islamic extremists, etc)?
So I was under the belief by the news I have seen in the past that President Obama had already decided that the U.S. was going to pull out of Afghanistan slowly over the next year or two training the government to take care of itself before completely leaving. I have not heard that there were other possibility’s including increasing military presence there that was being considered by Obama. I was under the impression that the decision to leave was made and that the government was just deciding the details on the best way to complete this.
I think that it is just stupid that there is still a debate on this topic. It seems to me like Obama is just going back on what he had said before, which is not a good start to his presidency. When more people begin to hear about this story I think a lot of them will get angry, I know I did after reading it. I think the best policy is the scaling back plan. This would eventually get the troops out of such a dangerous place but we as a nation would not be leaving the Afghanistan government and people without protection because we would help train their military before going.
Which plan do the military troops who have been in the country trying to help the people and government find peace support?
A) Well, in this article I learned that Obama is indecisive on top of it all. He is taking a bunch of different positions and doesn’t know what to do. I don’t always agree with Obama but he has to make a decision. I want to see action coming out of it all and not just people discussing all the time. Some things have to be solved and finalized and done.
B) I think that the President can’t worry about being reelected. What he does will either be supported and he wins reelection or they aren’t and he won’t. That isn’t the end of the world. However, the United States not acting and doing something is a problem. I would support either keeping the military level the same or increased. The War on Terrorism is still something we have to fight for and support. The President still has to do something though. I believe that we as a public were able to decide to pick this man and therefore he has the support he needs right now and for the rest of his term.
C) I would like to know more about the arguments for all sides of this issue. Things could be worse with one option militaristically. While another may not be public opinion but is the best option. I want to see Obama make a hard choice.
In response to TJ
So I agree with you that the President should not be worrying about being reelected. I mean he just got elected and if he does well and gets reelected good for him and if not, oh well. However, why on earth would you want to support keeping the military levels the same or increased? Are you semi crazy because I think you might be? We have been fighting this War on Terrorism for so long and I really honestly do not feel like much has changed. All these troops of ours are over there fighting everyday and in America there isn’t even remorse about it. I remember when I was little I would watch the news with my mom and they would talk about all the people dying overseas, you don’t see that any more. It is old news to Americans. We need to get out and get our troops home because there is no real reason for them to be over there anymore.
In response to Kristina Nielsen:
I don’t think that Obama needs to decide if we need to put more or take more troops out and full heartily stick to it. I fill like there will be areas that more need to be added or more troops need to be sent home. One solution doesn’t cover the whole war. I do agree that lives will be lost if we send more troops in, but what about all the lives already lost? Did these men and women lose their lives for nothing? Obama has a big problem on his hands but he is going to make a lot of little decisions to solve it. .
In response to Megan Erickson’s question: “What was Obama’s primary plan concerning Afghanistan and how has that plan evolved since he became president?”
Obama recently stated his new plan saying, “So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” He wants about 4000 troops to be trained and then some civilians to create and help a new government there.
Before being elected President, Senator Obama also said that Iraq needed to be left in order to go in and win in Afghanistan. Basically his overall opinions have not changed; out of Iraq, into Afghanistan.
Megan Erickson –
Obama’s original plan for Afghanistan was to end the war in Iraq in order to refocus our military strength in Afghanistan. Since then, the commanding general in Afghanistan, General David D. McKiernan, has been replaced with Lieutenant General Stanley A. McChrystal. Also, troop levels in Afghanistan have risen by 17,000 since last February in order to stabilize Afghanistan and continue anti-insurgency operations. As of June, 2009, there are 48,250 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Right now, the Taliban has a “permanent presence” in about 80% of the country. As for being close to success, it is pretty unfavorable. The increased Taliban and Al-Qaeda activity has prompted an increase in training of Afghani soldiers and the building of two new permanent military bases in southern Afghanistan. In a report written by McChrystal in September, he wrote, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/world/asia/21afghan.html?_r=2&hp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_McChrystal
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-09-11-voa10.cfm
opencrs.com/document/RS22633/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29
projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/barack-obama/#top-priorities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#War_in_Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/11/AR2009051101864.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25074581-2703,00.html
In response to Kristina Nielsen:
General Stanley McChrystal is the current Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. His plan is to inundate the area, Afghanistan, with 30,000 to 40,000 more American troops. McChrystal and others think this plan could work because it worked with the Iraq troop surge in 2007, though there is some debate on how well the surge in Iraq actually worked.
In response to Justin Johnson
Thinking that if we go away, the problem goes away is a bad philosophy. Insurgents will be mad at us whether we are there or not. That is just the plain truth. It is called a war and that implies people are getting hurt, fact. Another honest fact, the people there fighting are choosing to fight. They enlisted and are making the sacrifice. I ask you and everyone else questioning the military to think about it. Could you make that sacrifice, could you go somewhere on faith, could you be someone to fight for your country, could you leave your family and do the dirty deed that has to be done? I’ll venture to guess you haven’t even thought about it. Vietnam may have been a hard war to fight just like this one, but don’t even dare to dishonor those veterans who fought. The answer to your question probably will surprise you. Since it is a joint effort between many nations, the other nations want to withdraw. Those are the top hits at least.
In Response to Nicole McMurry’s comment
To start I dare you to say there is no remorse to a family of someone lost. And to make a point it is in the news, you just have to look for it. News stations don’t want to report too much on it because it is a sad subject. That is why you don’t see it anymore. Yes it has been going on for a while but while we have been over there have there been any attacks on US soil? We took the fight to them. I think that is a good thing and I don’t want any more 9/11 days. That is what we are fighting for. If you can’t support fighting terrorism against US citizens then try to find a place where there isn’t any terrorism. You will have a hard time finding that.
In response to Krystal Roach:
“Which plan do the military troops who have been in the country trying to help the people and government find peace support?”
My brother-in-law is in the army and although I did not call him and ask him, I know how he feels about it. He has served a yearlong tour in Afghanistan, two 4 month tours in Iraq, and leaves at the end of this month for about 11 months to go back to Iraq. Having two kids and a wife, I can tell you that no father or husband likes leaving their family. But as a soldier, you do what is asked of you and support your country. He does not like the fact that he has to miss out on another year of his kids’ lives, but he does it because he is a soldier.
In response to Kristina Nielson:
I, too, was under the impression that President Obama was for the removal of our troops. This ongoing war has been in effect for, what, 8 or 9 years? He’s considering so many different options, because he needs to make sure what he chooses is as close to fool-proof as possible. Imagine Obama choosing to start withdrawing troops, and imagine that, because of his choice, al-Qaida is able to take over Afghanistan once again. Obama wouldn’t be seen in the most flattering light, especially to the Americans that are dying daily in this war that seems to be going nowhere. He needs to have options, options that can be discussed, agreed and/or disagreed on among Congress, so that the government can do what’s best for this war in an effort to get us back to the point where our troops can come home and stay home.
In Response to Kristina Nielsen Question: “And what is the McChrystal plan? Who made that up and why do they think it’s going to work?”
First off I really agree with you that the only way Obama is going to solve anything is to decide and stick to one plan. I went to a couple of different websites looking for the plan and I found out a couple of things. First I guess The McChrystal plan was sent to Obama this summer. Next General Stanley A. McChrystal, who is the commander of the war in Afghanistan, came up with the plan and sent it to Obama in a document after much observation on how the war was and has been going. The plan I guess said that the war could still be won but not with the resources that they are getting today. It said that the only way to win would be to increase supplies, which at the moment did not include troops but they believed it would soon, and stay heavily involved in Afghanistan for the next few years at least. From what it seemed the plan only looked good “on table” and most people did not think it would actually work out. I hope that helps a little, everything I read was kind of confusing. If you’re interested at all in looking at the document that was sent to Obama this is the website that it’s on (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf). I did not read it, it’s like sixty pages long, but if your interested I thought I’d put it out there for you.
Kristina Nielsen:
Obama changed his mind because he didn’t know what he was dealing with before. At first he promised to take troops home, but he didn’t realize what he was up against in the Middle East. Now he is wanting to bring troops home again because he feels like there are enough troops there that he can bring some out.
U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal warned President Obama that we have a big chance of failure in the Middle East. He believes that we will not get defeated but that we can defeat ourselves.
Kristina Nielsen:
Obama doesn’t know what he is doing. When he was running for president he said he would bring troops home, but he didn’t know what he would be up against. He then decided to put more troops in the Middle East. Now he is saying that he wants to bring troops home, because he believes there are enough troops out there right now, and we are powerful enough with what we have. He also believes it is right to bring troops back to their families.
U.S. Army General Stanley A. McChrystal told President Obama that we may fail over in the Middle East. He believes that we can not be defeated by enemies, but only by ourselves. Stanley McChrystal created the McChrystal plan. His plan is to put 40,000 more troops over in the Middle East.