Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times

Lawmakers hear U.S. options in Afghanistan

The witnesses testifying before the House Armed Services Committee crossed the broad range of strategy options in Afghanistan now likely being considered by the Obama administration:

On one end, a full-on addition of troops and other resources.

On the other, not expanding the U.S. military effort in because Americans would not be more threatened if Afghanistan once again became a safe haven for the al-Qaida terrorist group.

Withdrawal was not on the table during Wednesday’s hearing. While it is unknown whether the administration is considering such an option, it seems unlikely given President Barack Obama’s March assurances that “we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future” — although Obama is now engaged in a multi-week review of U.S. strategy following receipt of a fresh assessment from his top commander in Afghanistan.

Yet there was the view Wednesday of Paul Pillar, a Georgetown University professor and author of the 2001 book “Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy,” that counterterrorism, not nation-building, is the primary reason for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.

Obama’s March strategy called for a multi-level counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, and the recently leaked assessment of Gen. Stanley McChrystal calling for a whole-of-U.S. government approach that is “properly resourced.”

Pillar said he doubts whether a counterinsurgency could completely preclude the re-establishment of an al-Qaida safe haven inside Afghanistan. Even if such an effort was successful in most of the country, this “still would leave ample room for terrorist haven inside Afghanistan should a group seek to establish one,” he said.

McChrystal’s follow-on resource recommendation officially has not been made public, but according to various published reports, it includes recommended options for additional troops in numbers ranging from 10,000 to as high as 80,000.

But an addition of troops, Pillar said, “would be unwarranted. The benefits in terms of ultimately adding to the safety and security of Americans would be marginal and very questionable.”

Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, asked whether the war is worth waging and if so, at what cost. He said there is no way to intellectually resolve whether it is worth it, calling the decision “a judgment call on how much we’re willing to risk.”

Biddle said that if he had his druthers, any fresh U.S. troops would be deployed to support Pakistani forces in their efforts to combat insurgents on their northwest border region. But the ability to do that is limited “in part because we’re so unpopular in Pakistan.”

“It is possible for us to succeed in Afghanistan, but there is no guarantee,” he said.

In the eyes of retired Gen. Jack Keane, the way forward is clear: give McChrystal what he wants. The former Army vice chief of staff said the effort in Afghanistan is “worth the continued sacrifice” because the loss of Afghanistan “is a win for the Taliban and al-Qaida in Pakistan with potential serious consequences for Pakistan” — which, he reminded lawmakers, has nuclear weapons and, as Biddle characterized it, an “unstable” government.

“There is a single choice which offers the U.S. and the Afghan people the opportunity to succeed against the Taliban insurgency and thereby stabilize the country,” Keane said. “That choice is General McChrystal’s and General [David] Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy with the appropriate level of military forces, civilian personnel and financial resources.”

That means providing McChrystal with the number of troops he says he needs, Keane said. “Trying to do more with less will fail, and fail miserably,” he said.

DISCUSS: The options