- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
- Tornado rips off roofs, downs trees near Boston
- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
Go-for-broke time on Afghanistan war’s anniversary
Afghans, U.S. and allies all running out of patience as combat enters 10th year
Question of the Day
KABUL, Afghanistan | The war in Afghanistan enters its 10th year Thursday with key players hedging their bets, uncertain whether the Obama administration is prepared to stay for the long haul, move quickly to exit an increasingly unpopular conflict, or do something in between.
Fearing that his Western allies may in the end abandon him, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has started to prepare his nation for a withdrawal of international forces by shoring up relations with neighboring Pakistan and reaching out to insurgents interested in reconciliation.
There have been other important junctures, but this ninth anniversary is proving decisive. It’s go-for-broke time in Afghanistan.
Patience is running out here as well. Afghans are tired of the violence and increasingly resentful of foreign forces. Many wonder why their quality of life has not markedly improved when their nation has been awash in billions of dollars of foreign aid.
“NATO is here, and they say they are fighting terrorism, and this is the 10th year, and there is no result yet,” Mr. Karzai said in an emotional speech last week. “Our sons cannot go to school because of bombs and suicide attacks.”
All this is very different from the near-universal international support the George W. Bush administration enjoyed when it launched attacks on Oct. 7, 2001. The war was aimed at toppling the Taliban from power because they harbored Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders responsible for the terrorist strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of less than a month earlier.
The hard-line Islamic regime, which repressed women, banned music and held public executions for disloyal actions, collapsed within two months.
But the effort was underfunded from the start. When the Bush administration’s attention shifted to Iraq in 2003, the Taliban began to regroup. After several years of relative calm and safety, the situation in Afghanistan began to deteriorate around 2006. The Taliban have steadily gained strength since then. And bin Laden remains alive.
President Obama ramped up the war this year, sending tens of thousands more troops. Casualties are running at their highest levels since 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown without a single American combat death. The U.S. death toll in July was 66, setting a monthly record; to date, about 2,000 NATO troops have died in the conflict, including more than 1,220 American servicemen and -women.
There’s plenty of frustration at the White House and in the U.S. Congress, too. In August, when Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Kabul, he bluntly stated that if the Karzai government didn’t clean up corruption, it was going to be hard “to look American families in the eye and say, ‘Hey that’s something worth dying for.’”
On the battlefield, NATO’s top commander, U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, is banking on his plan to protect heavily populated areas, rout the Taliban from their strongholds and rush in better governance and development aid to win the Afghans’ loyalty away from the Taliban.
In February, NATO launched an offensive in Helmand province, the largest military operation in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion. Nearly eight months after U.S. forces mounted a high-profile assault that ended Taliban control of the rural town of Marjah, U.S. Marines there are still clearing it. There are signs that governance is improving, though troops still face daily gun battles and an entrenched insurgency that shows no signs of easing soon.
Afghan and international forces are ramping up security in neighboring Kandahar province, where the Taliban insurgency was born. Fighting in and around the nation’s largest city in the south has been intense as coalition forces push into areas long held by insurgents. Failure in Kandahar would be a major setback for the NATO force.
“We’re still fighting the fight,” said Army Capt. Nick Stout, a company commander with the 101st Airborne Division’s 1st Battalion, 502nd Infantry Regiment, in Senjeray, capital of Zhari district northeast of Kandahar city.
“It kind of begs the question: What is it? What’s the answer?” he said at the joint U.S.-Afghan outpost near Kandahar.
“America alone is not the answer to stopping” the insurgency, said Capt. Stout, 27, who wasn’t old enough to order a drink in his home of Lake Orion, Mich., when the war began.
Commanders like Capt. Stout say the war will be won only if Afghan civilians start supporting the troops. Also, they say, the only way that will happen will be if the forces can provide enough security to enable people to break free of the fear and intimidation of Taliban threats. In some places, residents don’t even want to be seen talking to U.S. forces for fear of Taliban reprisals.
Ready to refute pundits who say the war is lost, Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis, the supreme NATO commander in Europe, has compiled a list of nearly 50 examples that the coalition is making progress. He shared them in a five-page letter Oct. 1 to defense chiefs in NATO nations.
In a 90-day period ending in early September, he wrote:
• Special Operations Forces conducted 3,302 operations, resulting in 251 enemy leaders killed or captured.
• Ammonium nitrate, a key ingredient in homemade bombs, is being seized in record amounts around the country.
• Schools and the district police station have reopened in Marjah, and insurgents there are suffering from low morale and shortages in food and weapons.
• Afghan security forces will expand to 260,000 by the end of the year — 5,000 higher than the target.
“Afghanistan remains a tough fight, but at least three-quarters of the country — starting with bustling Kabul, extending into most of the north and west and including parts of the east — is either in reasonably promising shape or improving,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank who just returned from a trip to Afghanistan. “We should remain hopeful for now. The current strategy could well produce significant and convincing progress within a few months.”
Mr. Karzai still backs coalition efforts but also has used back channels to reach out to Taliban leaders who seem amenable to finding a political resolution to the war. Mr. Karzai appointed nearly 70 people last week to a High Peace Council, which will guide efforts to reach out to insurgents.
There’s strong suspicion in the region that U.S. troops will go home sooner rather than later — largely because of Mr. Obama’s decision to set July 2011 as his goal for starting a drawdown of U.S. forces.
Mr. Obama and Gen. Petraeus have said repeatedly that the U.S. is not planning a mass exodus in July 2011. Gen. Petraeus says all the extra U.S. troops and civilians needed to reverse the Taliban’s momentum have just arrived — and only now can Mr. Obama’s revised war strategy begin to work.
But as the war drags on, the U.S. has lowered its sites and goals. Fewer people are talking about establishing Western-style democracy in Afghanistan. Instead, the focus is on finding some way to force out al Qaeda — even if that involves a deal with Taliban members.
Stephen Biddle at the Council on Foreign Relations says the Obama administration must clarify what the endgame will look like.
He predicts success in Afghanistan will mean “arriving at an intermediate end state — somewhere between ideal and intolerable.”
Hovering like a shadow over the discussion is Afghanistan’s bloody history.
The Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 1979 but was forced to withdraw nine years later by anti-communist mujahedeen forces, who were supplied and trained by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others. These U.S.-backed rebels took power in 1992 when the pro-Moscow government collapsed.
They quickly turned their guns on each other, and a violent civil war ensued. The Taliban took advantage of the power vacuum and within two years had seized Kabul.
TWT Video Picks
By David Keene
Allowing states to innovate could reduce dependency on bureaucracy
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- Iraqi Christians rally at White House: 'Obama, Obama, where are you?'
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- White House defends Kerry failure to broker Middle East cease-fire
- Tennessee Gov. Haslam slams White House for secret dump of illegals in his state
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia's gay marriage ban
- Federal judge rules D.C. ban on handguns in public is unconstitutional
- White House says Russia 'losing' war in Ukraine
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq