Afghanistan Fight Requires Unwavering Commitment
Jeff Seldin, Voice of America
American troops and money will need to be in Afghanistan for years to come in order to prevent the unrelenting spread of terrorism, according to the latest, dour assessment from a top U.S. general.
“Now, more than ever, the United States should not waiver on Afghanistan,” General John Campbell, the outgoing commander of Operation Resolute Support told lawmakers on the House Armed Service Committee Tuesday.
"If we think we can just stop and it's going to go away, or people are not going to continue to try to attack Europe or attack our homeland here, then we're naive. We're kidding ourselves,” Campbell added. “We have to be able to continue to have a long-term commitment.
Campbell’s warning comes less than a week after his likely successor, Lieutenant General John “Mick” Nicholson, told Senate lawmakers terror groups like Islamic State and al-Qaida continue to see Afghanistan as an attractive sanctuary and warned the United States may need to take a more aggressive approach.
There are about 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for counterterrorism activities and to train and advise Afghan security forces, with that number expected to drop to about 5,500 by the end of the year. NATO allies are supplying about another 6,000 troops.
Campbell praised U.S. President Barack Obama for scrapping plans to reduce U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to about 1,000 with a Kabul-centered footprint.
Almost 30 Percent Jump in Casualties
He said that despite steady improvements, Afghan security forces and the Afghan National Army still faced gaps with critical capabilities like air power, as well as lingering problems with military leadership.
"Afghanistan has not achieved an enduring level of security and stability that justifies reduction in our support," Campbell said. “They have not consolidated significant gains of their own nor defeated the insurgency.
"If we do not make deliberate, measured adjustments, 2016 is at risk of being no better and possibly worse than 2015," he added.
U.S. military officials have previously said Afghan forces had mixed results in 2015, doing most of the fighting themselves, but suffering from an almost 30 percent jump in casualties due to growing confrontations with a resurgent Taliban force.
But despite fighting through the winter, U.S. officials say the Taliban was unable to hold onto its gains.
Campbell told lawmakers of the 407 district centers in Afghanistan, only eight were under insurgent control, with 18 under insurgent influence and another 93 “at risk” of falling to insurgents.
The outgoing commander of U.S. forces said the Taliban had suffered heavy casualties partly because of clashes with Afghan forces, internal fracturing and competition from the Islamic State terror group.
“Daesh continues to conduct brutal attacks against civilians and directly competes with the Taliban for resources to establish a foothold in the country,” Campbell said, using the Arabic acronym for the terror group.
For now, that foothold is centered in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar Province, but Campbell said IS militants are increasing recruiting in other parts of the country.
Concerns and Doubts
Campbell also warned al-Qaida, the terror group long allied with the Taliban, while “significantly weakened” was “certainly not extinct” and also poses a serious threat, as does the Haqqani network, another terror group.
While expressing concern about the tenuous security situation in Afghanistan, lawmakers also voiced some doubts about the ongoing U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
“Given that we’ve been there for 14 years and we can’t leave yet, how many 4.1 billion times are we going to do this,” Democratic Representative Loretta Sanchez said in reference to the $4.1 billion the United States is spending to build up the Afghan security forces.
Republican committee member Walter Jones was more critical.
“Our policy in Afghanistan, there is no endpoint to it,” Jones said. “It's just going to go on for the next 20 to 30 years."
But Campbell argued now is no time to pull out of Afghanistan, and said the country is a key part in what he called a generational fight to stop the spread of terrorism.
“We’ve got to get united. We’ve got to fight this as a global force,” he told lawmakers. “And Afghanistan wants to be part of that force.
Comments
Edited just a bit:
How to understand Afghanistan and, indeed, "unwavering commitment," in the world today:
In the Old Cold War of yesterday, the Soviets/the communists sought to achieve the spread of their unique values, attitudes, beliefs and institutions worldwide.
In this effort, they ran up against both state and non-state actors who -- using various ways and means -- and acting separately and/or together -- sought to prevent, contain and/or roll back these such Soviet/communist expansionist attempts.
In the New/Reverse Cold War of today we find ourselves in a very similar world. (This explaining, for example, both "our" and "their" return to such things as political warfare, unconventional warfare, hybrid warfare, etc.).
In our case today, however,
a. It is the U.S./the West that seeks to achieve the spread of its unique values, attitudes, beliefs and institutions worldwide. And
b. Various other state and non-state actors who -- by various ways and means -- and acting together and/or separately -- seek to prevent, contain and/or roll back our such expansionist attempts.
Thus, if we put aside, for the moment (or indeed forever) the singular concept of terrorism and/or terrorist safe-haven -- re: Afghanistan and elsewhere -- and instead view these matters in the more-comprehensive New/Reverse Cold War worldview/conflict environment terms offered above -- then how might this:
a. Change our perspective?
b. Inform our strategy? And how might this, accordingly,
c. Alter our view -- as per such things as an "unwavering commitment" -- and the means/measures to achieve same -- in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the world today?
(In this regard, think [a] a New/Reverse Cold War conflict environment; one that [b] entails, demands and requires, accordingly, an across-the-board, and more-comprehensive, and a more sustainable and sustained effort and a "long-haul" plan, strategy and design?)
My argument here stated another way:
Cir. 2003 and Iraq, but most-certainly with the failed "Arab Spring," both we -- BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY OUR ENEMIES -- came to understand that -- not only had the communist version of "universal values" and "the end of history," etc., failed -- but also our such version of these ideas and concepts.
This requiring that, should we wish to see our unique values, attitudes, beliefs and institutions spread worldwide, this would,
a. Require that we must apply all our instruments of power, in a political warfare approach and via a complementary long-haul strategy; these, so as to
b. Have a chance to see this initiative through to its desired end (all outlying states and societies organized, ordered and oriented more along modern western political, economic and social lines.)
Thus, Afghanistan (et. al) -- and such things as "unwavering commitment" -- to be analyzed, viewed and understood in the larger, more-comprehensive and more-correct terms and context of the "failed western universal values concept" and (thus) the New/Reverse Cold War worldview/conflict environment -- outlined above?
I think Afghanistan is an excellent place for these people to have more than a foothold, I think they should have the entire country. Containment worked to “defeat” the Soviet Union.
If we took the time to actually identify the enemy and prohibit their travel, we would be miles ahead. It really is not that difficult but unfortunately, it is made difficult by the administrative cowardice of leadership.
Afghanistan has proven to be incapable of running their country without significant external support. Now that the cold war is over, what country will provide the required economic aid to run this place?
Russia? They have about 15,000 reasons not too. China? Why? North Korea? Can’t afford it. Iran? Wrong sect. Pakistan? I think they are the only real option and they are scared of Daesh now.
The sole benefit for staying in Afghanistan now, and it is a significant one, is to continue sharpening our military by having them involved in combat.
I agree with both GEN Campbell and you. The myth that special warfare takes years, some argue decades, to succeed is self-serving rubish. It certainly will if you have an ill conceived strategy. We should also note democracies usually don't win wars of erosion. Another decade doing the same will result in little progress, but failure to stay will allow transnational terrorists to regain a foothold. We got to where we are by poorly conceived strategy based on unrealistic assumptions made our civilian and military leaders, but here we are.
Gen Campbell is absolutely incorrect. It took the United States 8 years from flash to bang to get a man on the moon. The "war" in Afghanistan has been going on for almost 15 years. There is a distinct difference between an engineering feat and defeating an enemy, but the contrast is shocking.
In those 15 years, we have fought about 30 different wars as every new commander that rotated in had his way of doing things. There has never been a coherent, long-term strategy to win this conflict. Anyone who says so is selling you a bill of goods. This includes Gen Campbell’s contribution as the former CJTF 101 commander.
At this point, this conflict is a matter of failed policy and America continues to pay the price for ineffectual military and civilian leadership.
It is time to step away from the self-licking ice cream that is this conflict and actually protect the Homeland, by protecting the Homeland.