Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

"Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow and director of research in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, where he holds the Sydney Stein Jr. Chair. He is author of The Science of War and is senior author of the Brookings Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan indexes.Hassina Sherjan is the president of Aid Afghanistan for Education, a nonprofit group that has educated more than 3,000 Afghan girls. She also heads Boumi, a Kabul-based home decor company using Afghan-based cotton. Born in Afghanistan and raised there and in California, Sherjan began returning to her native land during Taliban rule and has lived there since 2001."

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Toughing It Out in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution Press

Chapter One

"Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can." -President Barack Obama, June 4, 2009

"Conditions on the ground are now much more difficult than in 2002 when the Afghan people overwhelmingly welcomed the international intervention. The goals set, however, are still achievable if the needs and aspirations of the Afghan people are the focus of renewed efforts." -Former Afghanistan finance minister Ashraf Ghani, April 2009

Afghanistan has become America's longest war. Eight years after the United States set out to destroy the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, along with the Taliban regime that gave it sanctuary, American and NATO troops were still in Afghanistan fighting a resurgent Taliban in a war that had not achieved its original objectives and that threatened to have negative effects on the stability of neighboring Pakistan. Barack Obama promised during his presidential campaign that he would refocus on Afghanistan, that the previous administration had made a mistake by turning away from it. But the Obama administration's decisions in March and then December 2009 to increase America's commitment to the country have raised questions about how many American lives and how much of its wealth should be spent on the effort.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, in a CBS interview in early 2009, lamented that the mission in Afghanistan, like any war, is extremely painful for those actually carrying it out. Since 2008 Afghanistan has, on average, been a more dangerous place for American soldiers to deploy than Iraq. Costs are high not only for the families of those who have died in battle, but also for those physically wounded, those afflicted with psychological trauma, and those who have been deployed time and time again in recent years.

For many years the Afghanistan war was fought with minimal effort. U.S. troop commitments were typically one-tenth as large as those for Iraq during President George W. Bush's first term; NATO allies contributed too, but their troop numbers were even more modest than America's during most of the effort. NATO sought to build an Afghan security force less than one-fifth the size of Iraq's, even though Afghanistan is larger and slightly more populous than Iraq. And it did not provide the necessary trainers to help that smaller force; in early 2009, for example, only one-fourth of all police units had embedded mentors from international partners like the United States.

This situation has changed. Combined foreign forces, organized under a NATO-led mission, numbered more than 100,000 at the end of 2009 and headed to 140,000 in 2010. With annual U.S. costs reaching about $100 billion, it is hardly cheap in financial terms either.

The war is also Afghanistan's longest. It is essentially a conflict that goes back thirty years, to the Soviet invasion. Modern Afghanistan is about as old as the United States, and over the last two and a half centuries, it has never seen such a protracted period of conflict. Britain and Russia played out their "great game" of geostrategic competition at Afghanistan's expense throughout much of the nineteenth century, but this was not a period of continued fighting as the last thirty years have been.

Is the war in Afghanistan now a quagmire? Can the United States and its allies still "win?" Can Afghans really come together as a country to unify their land and build a modern state? Are the stakes really worth it for the United States as well as for other Western powers fighting in this part of the world? Finally, how will we know if the strategy is succeeding as intended?

These are questions increasingly being asked by the American people and Congress. The skeptics include many members of President Obama's own Democratic party, such as Representative David Obey, who has warned Mr. Obama that his Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy has the potential to "devour" his presidency. Vice President Joe Biden is also reported to be wary of a counterinsurgency strategy requiring large numbers of American forces. These are also the questions addressed by this short book. It is designed to help readers understand more about Afghanistan and the war there. It is meant to help inform the American and broader international debate on Afghanistan in 2010 and 2011-absolutely crucial years. As the 2010 fighting season unfolds, we expect another tough and bloody period of combat. The Afghanistan "surge" is not producing results as fast as the Iraq surge did in 2007, and citizens around the world have a right to know why. They also deserve to know how much longer they must be patient, how much longer they must tolerate the high costs in lives and treasure, before a turnaround can reasonably be expected.

At this point, in early 2010, we strongly support the war effort. That is perhaps no surprise. One of us is an Afghan American living in Kabul and trying to help rebuild her country. The other is a defense scholar who became a major supporter of the surge in Iraq and believes strongly in military strategies for counterinsurgency that emphasize protection of the indigenous population and development of local institutions. (He is also a former Peace Corps volunteer in Congo who has seen the consequences of international disinterest and disengagement in a conflict-prone country.) The new Obama strategy for Afghanistan has these basic emphases as well. But as analysts, we know that no war effort should be sustained indefinitely if it fails to achieve progress. In addition to making the case for the current Afghan-NATO strategy, therefore, we also try to project how long it should be before a major improvement in conditions is plainly visible. And we have numerous suggestions, on the military and civilian sides, for how the strategy can be improved.

Perhaps the idea of winning is wrong-headed; winning implies a definitive end, whereas extremism in Afghanistan has been around for decades and may not be within our power to eliminate. But we do think that by 2011, this war can turn around and that by 2013 or so-when the U.S. and NATO role in the war will reach the twelve-year mark-there will be a chance to turn over the main effort to Afghans themselves. True success may take some additional time; building a strong Afghan state and strong economy after so many years of conflict will likely take a generation. But making Afghanistan strong enough to continue the war-fighting and state-building effort itself, while depriving al Qaeda and the Taliban of sanctuaries within Afghanistan from which to attack other countries, is quite likely achievable within a few years. Now that the effort is to be properly resourced with the additional troops that the war's commander, General Stanley A. McChrystal, has requested and the additional civilian support and aid money Ambassador Karl Eikenberry has asked for, we believe that if the Afghan government can make at least some strides toward greater reform and greater effectiveness on the ground for its people, the odds of at least partial success are good-certainly better than 50 percent.

THE STAKES

Just how important is this war, anyway? This is a fair question as the nation doubles down its bets and commits more of its sons and daughters than ever before to a faraway conflict in a remote part of the world.

The simplest answer to this question is to prevent another 9/11 that might originate on Afghan soil, as the original September 11, 2001, attack did. All nineteen hijackers trained there, as have many other anti-Western terrorists over the years. The leadership of al Qaeda and associated movements has now pledged loyalty to Mullah Omar, head of the Afghanistan Taliban, and al Qaeda has trained the Taliban in various methods of attack. Intelligence reports also suggest growing ties between al Qaeda and another major insurgent militia with an extremist ideology, the so-called Haqqani network operating in Afghanistan's east (especially in Khost, Paktia, and Paktika provinces). So the triumph of insurgent groups in Afghanistan would likely lead to a renewed home and sanctuary for al Qaeda within Afghanistan, with a friendly government protecting it-greatly facilitating its training, coordination, and command-and-control efforts globally. Such a sanctuary would be very troubling. Some say it would matter little, given al Qaeda's various other options for organizing its followers. However, the degree of brainwashing required of people being trained to be suicide bombers in the pursuit of a perverted version of jihad is extreme. The notion that it can happen on a large scale just anywhere or through the Internet is improbable; that is not the way extremist movements tend to develop devout followers.

As Gordon Smith, a Canadian official and scholar, plainly put it, in words that would apply equally well to most Western countries including the United States: "It is in Canada's interest that Afghanistan and the bordering regions of Pakistan not again be used as a base from which global terrorist attacks can be launched: think of London, Madrid, Bali and Mumbai, as well as 9/11." As bad as the first few incidents on Smith's list were themselves, 9/11 was far worse-and 9/11 was the plot that benefited in large measure from al Qaeda's ability to organize on Afghan soil.

The stakes, however, go beyond simply denying al Qaeda another sanctuary. Afghanistan has special importance in the minds of al Qaeda-and would-be recruits of al Qaeda-as a symbol of a successful attack against the West. Were we to lose there, al Qaeda would argue that its predictions about the West's weakness and lack of staying power were correct. It would claim momentum in its broader, global struggle against "infidels." That could help the terrorists find new followers who wanted to be on the winning side of history. It would also restore momentum to al Qaeda, momentum that it has lost across the globe from Iraq to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and elsewhere. The head of the British armed forces, General Sir David Richards, stated that a NATO "failure [in Afghanistan] would have a catalytic effect on militant Islam around the world and in the region because the message would be that al-Qaeda and the Taliban have defeated the US and the British and NATO, the most powerful alliance in the world. So why wouldn't that have an intoxicating effect on militants everywhere? The geo-strategic implications would be immense."

Some say that the Taliban and other Afghan resistance movements are not our real enemies and that we should reach an accommodation with them. But many with firsthand experience of the Taliban in recent years would beg to differ. David Rohde of the New York Times, who was held captive in late 2008 and much of 2009 by the group, vividly described the extreme degrees of hatred for the United States, and support for al Qaeda's global agenda, among its members. As counterterrorism expert Bruce Riedel says, "Terrorists don't stay in their lanes." They tend to work together. That includes other groups in Afghanistan besides the Taliban, such as the Haqqani network. The goal of a large, growing fundamentalist movement that would attempt to create a caliphate throughout much of the Islamic world, and use extreme methods against American allies and interests as well as other dissenting groups and individuals in the process, is not confined to al Qaeda. A victory for the Afghan resistance is effectively a victory, and a major one at that, for al Qaeda and associated movements with a global and anti-Western agenda.

Another crucial reason to prevail in Afghanistan is to prevent Pakistani extremists from using Afghanistan as a sanctuary and training ground for launching attacks against their own country. A destabilized, nuclear-armed Pakistan, with up to 100 nuclear weapons and thousands of extremist fighters including al Qaeda partisans, would be an even greater threat to the United States and other states than would a failed state in Afghanistan itself. Afghanistan is not very far from central Pakistan, and the border regions between the two countries are so hard to police that it would be highly undesirable to allow extremists such a safe haven so close to a strategically crucial state. At precisely the moment when Pakistan is finally committing more of its resources to going after extremists in its own tribal regions, it would be an unfortunate moment to give them a sanctuary within Afghanistan. Moreover, there are growing reasons to fear that Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban, and al Qaeda have developed more links and more forms of cooperation in recent years. This is not a conclusive argument in favor of winning in Afghanistan at all costs, but it is an important reason why defeat would be worrisome.

Some argue that our core goals can be achieved through a more narrow counterterrorism agenda, rather than a full-scale counterinsurgency approach. That is, they favor "CT, not COIN," to use the acronyms commonly employed for each concept. They believe that another 9/11 could be prevented, and major disruption to Pakistan averted, by a more limited approach. Under this strategy, special forces would periodically attack any cells that coalesced within Afghanistan, even in the absence of a stable central government. Drones, cruise missiles, and other forms of standoff attack would contribute as well, carrying out strikes in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In this way, these critics say, we would accomplish our core objectives without engaging in huge risks to American personnel or unrealistic aspirations about the possibility of helping construct a functioning Afghan state.

But it is the CT plan that is unrealistic. In essence, it is the plan that the Bush administration tried in its early years and that clearly failed, leaving us with the dilemma we have today. To be effective CT must have intelligence, but obtaining solid intelligence on the locations of terrorists is very difficult without a strong presence on the ground and the cooperation of friendly local actors. Such friendly local Afghans are much harder to find, and protect, in a chaotic, destabilized country. At some point, if and when the Afghan resistance prevails in combat, as would likely happen under a CT approach, the air bases and other facilities we currently use to attack extremists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan could also be lost.

Proponents of CT respond that the international community is trying a more minimal approach to countering al Qaeda in places such as Somalia and some of the tribal areas of Yemen-two additional places largely unpoliced by any effective government. If we can get by with such an approach in these places, why not Afghanistan too, one might ask? But Afghanistan is a more remote country than Somalia or Yemen, and a place with more tribal networks and political actors favorable to al Qaeda. As the Bush administration learned, air strikes and commando raids against suspected terror targets are much harder to pull off quickly and effectively in Afghanistan than they would be in other places. Afghanistan is therefore a safer, more convenient place for al Qaeda to operate. And al Qaeda has already proven its interest in operating from Afghanistan. Its leadership remains based nearby in the mountains of western Pakistan even today. There is currently considerable Pakistani action against extremists in these regions, so we finally have a chance to execute a hammer and anvil approach against the major redoubts for al Qaeda and associated movements. To be sure, a CT approach may be our only fallback position if the counterinsurgency effort fails. But it is a poor substitute.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Toughing It Out in Afghanistanby Michael E. O'Hanlon Hassina Sherjan Copyright © 2010 by Brookings Institution Press. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.