home > by publication type > daily analysis > Afghanistan, the Other 'Surge'
Email
| Prepared by: | Eben Kaplan |
|---|
British Royal Marines return after a gun-battle with Taliban militants near Kajaki in southern Afghanistan. (AP/Manish Swarup)
The U.S. foreign policy debate these days revolves around President Bush’s controversial “new way forward” in Iraq. Military commanders in Iraq split over the wisdom of adding more troops there, but there is no such division in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates told reporters after a recent visit to Kabul: “There’s no reason to sit back and let the Taliban regroup” (NPR). Thus, President Bush will extend the tours of 3,200 troops by four months and ask Congress to invest an additional $10.6 billion into its Afghan campaign (IHT). Kurt Volker, one of the U.S. State Department’s chief officials responsible for NATO policy, tells CFR.org’s Robert McMahon that the United States also wants to resolve the issue of national “caveats” impeding some NATO countries from letting their troops fight the Taliban in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with NATO foreign ministers Friday, urging them to ramp up their own commitments to Afghanistan (BBC).
NATO commanders in the region expect mounting clashes with the resurgent Taliban guerillas, primarily in the south of the country. Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, the outgoing top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told reporters on January 16: “It is going to be a violent spring and we’re going to have violence into the summer.” The U.S. military released annual statistics showing a nearly five-fold increase (Globe & Mail) in direct attacks on NATO forces from 2005 to 2006. The spike in violence comes as Afghans continue to struggle to restore their livelihoods. Washington Post correspondent Pamela Constable says five years after the overthrow of the Taliban, “The country is still so destitute and undeveloped that most inhabitants have no central heating, electricity or running water.”
International force levels have been steadily rising; the nearly twenty-four thousand U.S. troops in Afghanistan slightly outnumber the total number of NATO forces in the country. Any increase in U.S. forces would be small in comparison to 21,500-strong “surge” President Bush plans for Iraq. Washington Post blogger William M. Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst, said of the recent tough moves from Iraq to Somalia: “The new, new strategy is to pile on.”
While most Americans bristle at the notion of sending additional forces into Iraq—60 percent, according to a recent poll (PDF)—Afghanistan may prove different. A Christian Science Monitor op-ed notes Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden’s (D-DE) opinion that “If we're surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan.” A USA Today editorial also favors more U.S. boots on Afghan soil.
Part of the willingness to accept greater involvement in Afghanistan comes from a more broadly held view that it could actually make a difference. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Afghanistan expert Barnett R. Rubin says the country can only be saved if Western powers increase their commitment. Rubin also advocates a stronger stance on Pakistan, where “the Taliban and al-Qaeda maintain critical sanctuaries,” (PDF) according to recent congressional testimony from outgoing National Intelligence Director John Negroponte.
Secretary Gates also expressed fresh concern about increasing cross-border attacks (Bloomberg) from Pakistan. Many of these fighters continue to come from Pakistan’s somewhat lawless tribal lands, where an agreement between Islamabad and tribal leaders appears to have failed to staunch (IHT) the flow of fighters across the border. This, says the Economist, could be a harbinger of al-Qaeda’s revival.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.