RSS Feed MenuThe Obama administration and Congress have a choice to make regarding the war in Afghanistan. President Obama must decide whether to intensify the conflict by adding more troops as requested by General McChrystal or narrow the mission to targeting terrorists. The CIA is expanding its teams in Afghanistan , calling it “an intelligence surge.” NewMajority asked former CIA officials, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers, and Congressman Hoekstra (R-MI) their opinions on how to fight the Afghanistan War.
All who were interviewed worried that Americans are losing their resolve to fight the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Frances Townsend, a former Homeland Security advisor, commented to NewMajority that “People that don’t deal with the threat and see the intelligence each day seem to take greater comfort from the fact that there has been no attack in 8 years; that is not because al-Qaeda has any less intent to attack us.” General Myers felt stronger about the way Americans react to the most recent wars. He noted that America can only succeed with “aggressive engagement and to use all the resources available.” For him, the issue is “about resolve. We have lost our resolve in places of the world and our enemies capitalize on that.”
Some Congressional leaders such as Senator Feingold (D-WI) and Levin (D-MI) have suggested that Afghanistan is not important to America’s interests. None of those interviewed agree with that assessment. General Myers felt that if America pulls out of Afghanistan, it will become an ungoverned place “where extremists can plan, plot, and train.” A former CIA analyst concurred and stated that it “presents a problem that can grow… that can turn into safe havens (for the extremists).”
All interviewed agreed that the consequences for America not winning in Afghanistan are severe. They pointed out that the Taliban will gain control of the government and will reunite with al-Qaeda. A former CIA official told NewMajority that “An emboldened al-Qaeda once again gets free run of Afghanistan and can use it as a launching point.” Another former high ranking CIA official stated that “I am confident that the Taliban and al-Qaeda share training and resources. Al-Qaeda has access for providing money and weapons. It would be like terrorism sponsoring a state.”
The larger issue is Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor. Pakistan is important because it has a nuclear arsenal and is located in a strategic position. Kent Clizbe, a former CIA operative, noted that Pakistan is located strategically next to India, Russia, and China: all nuclear powers. General Myers commented that “you can’t think about Afghanistan without thinking about Pakistan.” A high ranking former CIA official concurred, stating “you have to look at them as a package deal. That is what is disturbing about the way people are talking about Afghanistan. You can’t separate the two. The borders are not distinct.”
President Obama must exert leadership to re-focus Americans on the need for resilience in Afghanistan. All the former CIA officials agreed with Kent Cizbe when he said that the President must become “a strong, determined leader.” A highly placed former CIA official noted that President Obama needs to “explain to Americans that this is a place for training terrorists. People will understand that this is a place that can’t be abandoned. It’s common sense that we can’t walk away from it. Serious leadership is needed.”
How should President Obama conduct the war in Afghanistan? All those interviewed felt that what is needed is a combination of using the military, Special Forces and the CIA. A former CIA official sarcastically noted that “I am confused about the Obama administration. I thought they had a strategy.”
What are the President’s priorities considering he has met more with the Olympic Committee than McChrystal? General Myers stated that just using Special Forces and intelligence is not enough. A CIA operative pointed out that the special-ops missions were initially successful because some of the war lords were convinced to fight the Taliban. He further stated that President Obama needs to “let the generals fight the war, and not try to hide or sugar coat assessments by his commanders on the ground. “ General Myers agrees, telling NewMajority that “I think we should leave it to the strategy of Petraeus and McChrystal, the folks in charge now.”
President Obama needs to remember that should Afghanistan fall, it will return to a gathering place for those who plan to attack America. Congressman Hoekstra stated that Americans should not have “a half-hearted effort against people who are determined. We will lose and will allow a safe haven for those who wish to attack us.” A former operative told NewMajority that the CIA has always worked well with Special Forces but a military increase is needed as well. He frustratingly noted that there will be “dire consequences if we pull out prematurely. An unstable Afghanistan means an unstable nuclear Pakistan. If we pull out too early the Taliban will take over again and Al Qaeda will again be a welcome guest.” A high ranking CIA official angrily noted that “It’s time for clear thinking. We have to be there for the long haul and we must succeed. We can’t let the Taliban gain control or we will have another 9/11 with dire consequences.”
Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 2:38 pm
“ General Myers felt that if America pulls out of Afghanistan, it will become an ungoverned place “where extremists can plan, plot, and train.” ”
As opposed to the ‘governed’ place that it is now or has been ever (except of course when the Taliban ruled, unfortunately)? Extremists are planning, plotting and training there now. General Myers’s premise is false. Spin again.
“ General Myers commented that “you can’t think about Afghanistan without thinking about Pakistan.” ”
Absolutely. It’s become clear that our enemy is not simply Afghanistan, it’s Pakistan. If we need a military/special forces/CIA presence in a place that would otherwise become a “place for training terrorists,” than we need such a military/special forces/CIA presence in Pakistan. We have evidence that:
- Terrorists are/have been training in Pakistan
- The Taliban/Al Qaeda is alive and well in Pakistan
- The Pakistan gov’t took the $ we gave them and gave a healthy portion to ‘good’ Taliban factions (‘good’ according to Pakistan). Pakistan is aiding terrorists, is it not?
And if shooting down suspected terrorists from Predator drones is an acceptable strategy in Pakistan, than why isn’t it acceptable for Afghanistan?
mlindroo // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Eight years later, one has to wonder whether Osama bin Laden knew exactly what he was doing after all, when encouraging George W. Bush and his neocon minions to invade the Middle East…
The U.S. is still committing enormous manpower resources in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq, with no end in sight. Osama himself is still on the loose eight years later, Al Qaeda briefly established a significant beach-head in Iraq as a direct result of the U.S. invasion — not before! — and seems to be as powerful as ever in Pakistan.
Maybe the invasion of Afghanistan represents a kind of over-reaction after all? (I personally regarded the decision as 100% justifiable at the time). Did Mohammed Atta & co. learn anything crucially useful during their ~1 month stay in Afghanistan in 1999/2000 considering most of the training and preparations apparently took place in the United States the following year?! Or was it merely a clever plot by ObL to repeat Vietnam (and the Soviet experience in Afghanistan) for no good strategic reason?
MARCU$
balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 3:38 pm
How should President Obama conduct the war in Afghanistan? All those interviewed felt that what is needed is a combination of using the military, Special Forces and the CIA. A former CIA official sarcastically noted that “I am confused about the Obama administration. I thought they had a strategy.”
The problem is not about a strategy to “win” – the problem is that we’re wrestling with the very definition of “win”, including what’s actually achievable, and what resources we have available.
That question becomes particularly important when it seems like right after complaining about the Iranian President maintaining power through voter fraud … we’re supporting the Afghan President who appears to have maintained power through voter fraud.
It does not make sense to more fully commit resources (we’ve already tripled our troop strength in Afghanistan since Obama took office) until those things are worked out.
Maybe the invasion of Afghanistan represents a kind of over-reaction after all? (I personally regarded the decision as 100% justifiable at the time).
I don’t think the invasion was an over-reaction. I think the decision to occupy Afghanistan in order to keep the Taliban out of power was. Had we simply focussed on eliminating any Al Qaeda operations, and done some housecleaning to teach the Taliban what happened when they allowed terrorists to strike America from within their borders, and then left, they’d have gotten the message.
America’s best tool for fighting terrorism against us is to leverage the power of governments to act in their own best interest and keep terrorists from waking up the sleeping giant … and not in trying to build and run those governments.
jreb // Oct 1, 2009 at 4:14 pm
We have no choice in Afghanistan or Pakistan but to pursue a long term goal of victory against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The keys to that victory are we the American people must realize that it will mean a long term commitment (years) and a committed dedicated strategy by the military and not the politicians. The correct strategy as advocated by the military is one that involves COIN (counter-intelligence), winning the hearts and minds of the tribal members and prudent use of military power. Anyone who thinks that we are going to win the hearts and minds of the tribes through the use of pilotless drones in both Afghanistan and/or Pakistan is in for a rude awakening whether it be Republican or Democrat. Winning the hearts and minds of the tribes involves providing security and infrastructure which neither the Afghan government nor the Taliban or al-Qaeda is willing or able to provide to the tribes.
Reality Chick // Oct 1, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Recipe for Disaster
1 portion called Pakistan
1 portion called Afganistan
Blend together as to be almost indistinguishable
Add nuclear power
Add the ability to effectively direct that nuclear power
Swallow toxic result in small quantities…
The US and allies have no choice but to persevere with any and all means necessary to prevent this, as jreb writes above… “The correct strategy as advocated by the military is one that involves COIN (counter-intelligence), winning the hearts and minds of the tribal members and prudent use of military power.”
Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Is the US the only Western nation even considering adding troops?
jreb // Oct 1, 2009 at 5:03 pm
According to free-lance correspondent Michael Yon, all our NATO partners are either not planning to add or are planning to downsize. Maybe our President could use his influence to encourage our NATO allies to better equip and enlarge their contingents when he decides to increase our contingent.
Travis // Oct 1, 2009 at 5:06 pm
‘if’ he decides to increase our contingent
MFarmer // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm
What difference does it make if terrorists plan in one place rather than another? Will we be able to stop terrorists from planning attacks? How can we be sure that the absence of an attack in the US has anything to do with being in Afghanistan? When we reach a point where we have to leave Afghanistan, what will prevent it from reverting back to what it was? How long would we have to stay in Afghanistan to change the nature of the country so that it protects itself from terrorist control? What happens if we are attacked again? How many different countries will we have to go into before terrorism is contained?
I don’t think sending more troops solves our problems.
Reason60 // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:21 pm
“General Myers felt that if America pulls out of Afghanistan, it will become an ungoverned place “where extremists can plan, plot, and train.” A former CIA analyst concurred and stated that it “presents a problem that can grow… that can turn into safe havens (for the extremists).”
I am skeptical about the claim that an ungovernable territory poses an immediate threat to us. How is Afghanistan different than Somalia, or Yemen, Sudan, Congo, or half a dozen other ungovernable or lawless states?
Going to war, not to fight a clear and present threat, but to fight a possible theoretical future threat, seems foolish.
Fighting a potential enemy means then, that our mission becomes nation-building. It is the height of hubris and arrogance to think we can conceive and create out of thin air a stable civil society in a place that has never had one.
War is the most dangerous thing a nation can do; what we have grown accustomed to, is war as a normal course of events, a never-ending cycle. Today it is Afghanistan, tomorrow Pakistan, then who knows, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea…..the list of potential possible maybe, future, theoretical enemies is endless.
War by its nature enlarges government, and reduces liberty; permanent war means a steady erosion of fiscal stability and freedom.
MFarmer // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Yes, we are doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do — we are being drained a drip at a time.
balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 6:41 pm
War by its nature enlarges government, and reduces liberty; permanent war means a steady erosion of fiscal stability and freedom.
Yes. If you want an explanation of why managing the business cycle is so important to our government – it is because our military committments (both actual physical committments, as well as the constant flow of cash required to sustain our weapons programs) demand it. You can’t go through a real depression and sustain this level of military spending – so everyone accepts that government is going to have to bail out businesses and banks and prop up consumer spending and lots of other things in order to keep us out of a depression.
The rhetoric from some might be about making government smaller – but only the Paulites believe it, and accept that this means reducing our military committment. The rest of the Republican Party is just playing a game. At least the Dems actually believe in the large goverment that their policies make inevitable … mainstream Republican policies make large government inevitable at the same time they rail against it.
anniemargret // Oct 1, 2009 at 8:56 pm
We have now drained our military and stretched it to the breaking point. I am always amazed at the armchair warriors calling out for more troops and endless war . Will their sons and daughters be going? Will they acknowledge that at some point, if this scenario plays out, that a draft will be inevitable?
The costs of the Iraq war alone is staggering. Not just our soldiers who have died there, or the thousan others maimed for life, or the billions that have been spent there, but the costs when they return. The suicide rates are higher now than ever before . Two, three tours are breaking these men and women to psychotic levels . Their families are left in shreds with divorce and in some cases, violence from mental instability.
War is an aberration. It is most horrific thing a nation can get itself involved in, because the law of unintended consequences eventually plays out its hand.
Al Queda is multi-national and has dispersed its cells worldwide, across the Middle East and Asia. At what point do we stretch our capabilities to a breaking point? OBL wanted an economic destruction of the U.S. Overextending ourselves in unwinnable wars will bring us to the point. Vietnam – did we learn anything from it?
greg_barton // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Or else?
Or else what?
Does Cooper write for NewsMax?
jreb // Oct 1, 2009 at 9:32 pm
1-“An unstable Afghanistan means an unstable nuclear Pakistan. If we pull out too early the Taliban will take over again and Al Qaeda will again be a welcome guest.” +
2-The elimination of the financial and idealogical arm of Al-Qaeda (OBL) +
3-The elimination of the strategist and tactician arm of Al-Qaeda (Zawahiri) +
4-The elimination of top leadership of Al-Qaeda +
5-The elimination of safe sanctuary and training bases for Al-Qaeda recruits +
= No 9/11 type attack or terrorists attacks on the West
or
The establishment of a pure Islamic Wahhabi/Salafist regime in the west in which women are subservient, gays are eliminated and innocent non believers are slaves or eliminated
balconesfault // Oct 1, 2009 at 10:30 pm
The establishment of a pure Islamic Wahhabi/Salafist regime in the west in which women are subservient, gays are eliminated and innocent non believers are slaves or eliminated
lol. Bed wetters everywhere.
mlindroo // Oct 2, 2009 at 3:15 am
Balconesfault wrote:
> The rhetoric from some might be about making government smaller – but only the Paulites believe it,
> and accept that this means reducing our military committment.
At least they are being consistent — unlike somebody like Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds who regards himself as *both* a small government libertarian and a vigorous supporter of military intervention in the Middle East. As you say, these are really mutually exclusive objectives…civil libertarians dislike measures such as the Patriot Act, Protect America Act etc. but they are really a logical (and probably necessary-) result of the Bush Administration’s aggressive foreign policy.
If the U.S. was pursuing an isolationist foreign policy without overseas bases etc., there would be less need for reducing liberty at home.
MARCU$
sinz54 // Oct 2, 2009 at 10:20 am
MFarmer: Will we be able to stop terrorists from planning attacks?
You have to turn off the tap of radical Islam–the imams, the mullahs, and the Saudi and Iranian money backing them.
Saudi Arabia spends more money promoting fundamentalist Islam than the Soviet KGB spent promoting Communism during the Cold War.
And unlike the USSR, no American president can give an “Ich been ein Berliner”or “Evil Empire” speech or “Tear down this wall” speech about the Islamist world, because we desperately need their oil. (We would never have won the Cold War if we were dependent on imports of raw materials from the USSR.)