While the Obama administration endlessly dithers about the US committment to Afghanistan, it would do well to look at the surprising results of a major public debate on the issue. On 10 and 11 October, New York University and Newsweek Magazine hosted a formal debate on the participation of the US forces in the conflict in Afghanistan. At New York University on 9 October the propostion "America cannot and will not succeeed in Afghanistan/Pakistan" was debated before a large audience. The next day, Newsweek Magazine's national radio programme also hosted a dialogue with experts presenting their views on reinforcing the US forces in Afghanistan or withdrawing.
There was a strong speakers' card at the New York University debate, with Steven Clemons, a prominent defence analyst, and Ralph Peters, a retired US Army officer and newspaper columnist, speaking for the motion. The speakers against the motion included James Shinn, the former assistant secretary of Defence for Asia and my old friend, Lt Col John Nagl (rtd), who now writes on defence issues. I took part in Newsweek's radio debate as a supporter of reinforcing the Western effort in Afghanistan. My credentials to speak on the subject: I have taught courses on counterinsurgency to US and British officers since 1991, I have written three books on counterinsurgency, I served as a US officer in Iraq in 2004, and I am one of the main authors of the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency doctrine (Counterinsurgency FM 3-24) brought out under General Petreaus in late 2006...
More at The Daily Telegraph.
Comments
I really, really wish that Corum had not framed the Afghanistan debate in terms of left versus right. There's nothing inherently right-wing about pursuing an enclave strategy, trying to get leverage over a host government, or preventing a country from becoming the base for future terrorist attacks on the US.
The Afghan debate is really about methods: what are our objectives, what will we do to achieve them, and when will we execute whatever the strategy is.
For anyone that was interesting in hearing/watching this debate or more information about it:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/america-cannot-…
The 'About This Debate' link has the before and after poll results and 'Audio/Video' predictably has video and audio streams of the whole thing.
Intelligence Squared (US, UK, and OZ) is a great series.
Mr. Corum's article implies that President Obama's decision about Afghanistan is based entirely on public opinion and not sound policy. I am a student at the Army's Maneuver Captains Career Course, and find it interesting that while I study the deliberate steps in the military decision making process, none of our conservative brethren give creedence to what it seems the President is doing: deliberate MDMP.
I believe it is rash to assume that the President is making the biggest policy decision of his presidency based solely on how it will effect his party, and I believe those comments dilute from the real conversation. This is not a left-right argument, but a discussion on challenging some of the broad strategy assumptions associated with COIN in Afghanistan. Among them, what are the realistic capabilities of the Karzai government's ability to capatilize on security gains ISAF helps them achieve? Is a centralized, federal government compatible with the cultural, ethnic, and tribal diversity of people in Afghanistan?
With enough time and resources, there is no limits to what the American military can acheive. But let's have a conversation of what we are willing to pay, in blood and in resources, as a nation. Let's have a conversation of how policy in Afghanistan effects our entire National Security Strategy. Does building a stable national government in Afghanistan imply policy decisions for other Al Qaeda safe havens across the globe--i.e. Sudan, Somalia, Yemen?
As a junior Infantry Officer, I am in no means a strategic authority. I do recognize, however, when we blur military strategy with politics. I think we owe it to the nation, and to the world, to have a conversation void of partishanship. "Dithering" is quite a word, and the Commander in Chief deserves more from both sides, Democratic and Republican, while he makes a tremendous decision that will undoubtedley effect generations to come.
V/r,
KMJ
A Peters versus Nagl debate at a left leaning university and we're surprised at the results? Nagl's ideas of "social and government reform" are more appealing to the left than Peters' ideas of kill'em all. Both men are intelligent, so it isn't exactly fair to dumb it down to that extent, but in general I bet it is generally a fair assessment. I didn't hear the debate or see any links to it in the article, so based on what was presented I'm in agreement with Wilf, what does this prove if anything? As for Anon's post about GEN McChrystal also expressing doubt, he is correct about the GEN expressing concern. If the strategy is "fully resourced", then I think it "could" work if the manpower is used correctly. IMO they need to focus the blue forces on regions where the friendlies have relatively strong control, then gradually push out versus putting the main effort in Indian country. Take ground, consolidate gains, then push on.
OK, interesting article, but so what?
Where's the evidence? What we have here is opinion and opinion not well founded fact in as to what is operationally feasible.
A New York audience knows nothing about how fanciful and out of touch with military reality the arguments put before them maybe. What this really shows is folk lack the military knowledge to challenge the "COIN agenda."
Anon, I really should just delete your comment as it tends towards a simple drive-by snipe.
Would you care to elaborate, with citations, on why Jim Corum's post was, as you say, propaganda? We strive, here at <i>SWJ</i>, to discuss issues in a gentlemanly and professional manner - even when we adamantly disagree on any number of issues. Thanks - Dave