High-level study group recommends significant reductions of US troops

Two high-level reports, one from the US, the other from the UK, call for policy options that
would increase the chances of significant reductions on US force levels beginning next summer.

The thrust of the reports, focusing mostly on the US report, is that the US should reduce its ambitions in Afghanistan from nation-building through counterinsurgency (winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people) because it is too costly and ineffective. Rather, the members of the US group, The Afghanistan Study Group, prefer a counter-terrorist approach, involving fewer troops and narrowly targeted at al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups. The goals in this case is one of deterrence and containment and lowered costs. It does not recommend a full withdrawal of US troops, but a reduction in troops and a different strategic goal.

I cite below sections of three articles to provide a sense of what is being reported on this alternative approach of the Afghanistan Study Group.

First, Jim Lobe provides information on the US and UK reports in an article titled “Calls for Change of Afghan Strategy Grow Louder, September 9, 2010. You can find his full report at: http://original.antiwar.com/lobe/2010/09/08/calls-for-change-of-afghan-strategy-grow-louder

“Amid continued high levels of violence and a steady stream of reports of high-level government corruption in Kabul, a growing number of foreign policy specialists are urging President Barack Obama to reconsider his counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan.

“In a new report released here Wednesday, a bipartisan group of some three dozen former senior officials, academics, and policy analysts argued that the administration’s ambitious "nation-building" efforts in Afghanistan are costing too much in U.S. blood and treasure and that, in any event, "prospects for success are dim."

“Calling for an accelerated timetable for reducing the U.S. military presence there, the "Afghanistan Study Group," which also urged intensified efforts to reach a negotiated solution with the Pashtun-based Taliban, echoed many of the points made in the latest strategic survey which was released by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London Tuesday.

“‘(A)s the military surge reaches its peak and begins to wind down, it is necessary and advisable for outside powers to move to a containment and deterrence policy to deal with the international terrorist threat from the Afghan/Pakistan border regions,’ said IISS’s director-general, John Chipman, in introducing this year’s report.

"At present the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere," he noted. "(F)or Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests."

[….]

Second, here are sections from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s article, “Finding a Way Out of Afghanistan.” The full article can be accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-5

[....]

“At a moment when the administration and too many members of Congress have failed to explore alternatives to Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy, the importance of this clear and cogent [bipartisan] report can't be overstated.

“The report offers a thorough analysis of why and how we must dramatically reduce America's footprint in our nation's longest and most expensive war. Although the war is justified by its proponents as an effort to eradicate al-Qaeda, the report notes that "there are only some 400 hard-core al-Qaeda members remaining in the entire Af-Pak theater, most of them hiding in Pakistan's northwest provinces."

“Meanwhile, the war costs U.S. taxpayers approximately $100 billion a year -- about seven times Afghanistan's annual gross domestic product of $14 billion and more than the cost of the Obama administration's health-care plan. Considering that price tag alongside the number of troops killed or seriously wounded, the report concludes that "the U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice."

[….]

Third, Steve Clemons offers further views in his article, “Rethinking US War in Afghanistan, which can be found at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/09/08-8

[….]

“Far from admitting defeat, the report acknowledges the many limitations of a military solution in a region where U.S. interests lie in political stability. The group's recommended policy seeks to shift resources to focus on U.S. foreign policy strengths in concert with the international community to promote reconciliation among the warring parties, advance economic development and encourage region-wide diplomatic engagement.

[….]

“….The group's core recommendations do not include full, immediate troop withdrawal, but rather a decrease in the military footprint in Afghanistan.

“The five key recommendations are:

1. Emphasize power sharing and political inclusion. Washington should fast-track a peace process designed to decentralize power within Afghanistan and encourage a power-sharing balance among the principal parties.

2. Downsize and eventually end military operations in Southern Afghanistan and reduce the U.S. military footprint. The United States should draw down its military presence - which radicalizes Pashtuns and aids Taliban recruitment.

3. Focus security efforts on Al Qaeda and domestic security. Special forces, intelligence assets and other U.S. capabilities should continue to seek out and target known Al Qaeda cells in the region. They can be ready to act should Al Qaeda attempt to relocate elsewhere or to build new training facilities. In addition, part of the savings from our drawdown should be reallocated to bolster U.S. domestic security efforts and to track nuclear weapons globally.

4. Encourage economic development. Because destitute states can become incubators for terrorism, drug and human trafficking and other illicit activities, efforts at reconciliation should be paired with an internationally led effort to develop Afghanistan's economy.

5. Engage regional and global stakeholders in a diplomatic effort designed to guarantee Afghan neutrality and foster regional stability. Despite their considerable differences, neighboring states, such as India, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, share a common interest in preventing Afghanistan from being dominated by any single power or from being a permanently failed state that exports instability.

[….]

“Washington is now spending more on Afghanistan - and failing in its efforts - than the entire annual cost of the new U.S. health insurance program. This is money that could be used to better counter global terrorist threats far away from Afghanistan, reduce the $1.4 trillion annual deficit, repair and modernize a large portion of U.S. infrastructure, radically enhance U.S. educational investment, launch a massive new Manhattan Project-like effort for energy alternatives research - or put approximately 2 million Americans back to work.

“Thousands of American and allied personnel have been killed or gravely wounded. Too many innocent Afghans and Pakistanis have become victims - assuring unpredictable blowback in the years ahead.

“The U.S. interests at stake in Afghanistan do not warrant this level of sacrifice.

[….]