WASHINGTON, March 15, 2011 -- The Taliban's momentum has been reversed in most areas of Afghanistan, but the progress achieved there is fragile and reversible, the commander of NATO and U.S. forces said here today.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that much dangerous work remains ahead for coalition and Afghan government forces in the country.
"Nonetheless, the hard-fought achievements in 2010 and early 2011 have enabled the joint Afghan-NATO transition board to recommend initiation this spring of transition to Afghan lead in several provinces," he said. The progress also will factor into his recommendations in drawing down the number of U.S. forces in the country, now at around 100,000, the general added.
The progress, Petraeus said, has put the NATO-led effort on the path to turn over security responsibility for the country to Afghan forces by 2014.
The effort in Afghanistan is more than simply a military campaign, Petraeus told the senators. Support and resources the United States and the 47 other troop-contributing countries have provided has allowed the civil-military campaign to work, he said.
And, Petraeus noted, the Afghans themselves are shouldering an increasingly larger share of the defense burden.
"More than 87,000 additional NATO ISAF troopers and 1,000 additional civilians have been added to the effort in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2009," the general said. "In Afghanistan, security forces have grown by over 122,000 in that time as well."
Getting the inputs right has enabled all forces to conduct the comprehensive campaign, he said.
"Our core objective is, of course, ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for al-Qaida," Petraeus told the panel. "Achieving that objective requires that we help Afghanistan develop sufficient capabilities to secure and govern itself, and that effort requires the execution of the comprehensive civil-military effort on which we are now embarked."
The effort has enabled a stepped-up tempo of precise, intelligence-driven operations to capture or kill insurgent leaders, the general said.
"In a typical 90-day period, in fact, precision operations by U.S. special mission units and their Afghan partners alone kill or capture some 360 targeted insurgent leaders," Petraeus said. "Moreover, intelligence-driven operations are now coordinated with senior officers of the relevant Afghan ministries, and virtually all include highly trained Afghan soldiers or police, with some Afghan elements now in the lead on these operations."
Combined ISAF-Afghan operations have cleared the Taliban from important safe havens, and the forces are holding these areas, allowing governance and development to take root, Petraeus noted.
"ISAF and Afghan troopers have, for example, cleared such critical areas as the districts west of Kandahar city that were the birthplace of the Taliban movement, as well as important districts of Helmand province," he said.
These operations have resulted in the gradual development of local governance and economic revival in the growing security bubbles, the general said, pointing out that in Marja in Helmand province --- once a Taliban stronghold --- 75 percent of registered voters cast ballots in recent city elections.
"As a result of improvements in the security situation there," Petraeus said, "the markets -- which once sold weapons, explosives and illegal narcotics -- now feature over 1,500 shops selling food, clothes and household goods."
Safe havens in Pakistan also are receiving attention, as ISAF has troops in place to interdict these corridors, the general told the senators, and ISAF and Afghan troops are cooperating with Pakistani forces across the border to trap Taliban forces between this hammer and anvil.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai will announce which provinces will transition to full Afghan control next week, Petraeus said. "In keeping with the principles adopted by [NATO's] North Atlantic Council to guide transition," he said, "the shifting of responsibility from ISAF to Afghan forces will be conducted at a pace determined by conditions on the ground with assessments provided from the bottom up so that those at operational-command level in Afghanistan can plan the resulting battlefield geometry adjustments with our Afghan partners."
The transition, he continued, will allow NATO to take some troops out of the country, and will enable a bulk-up of troops in other areas.
"Similar processes are also taking place as we commence transition of certain training and institutional functions from ISAF trainers to their Afghan counterparts," Petraeus said.
It's important to ensure the transition process is irreversible, the general said.
"As the ambassadors of several ISAF countries emphasized at one recent NATO meeting," he said, "we'll get one shot at transition, and we need to get it right."
Since the surge of forces into Afghanistan reached its peak eight months ago, the progress is undeniable, Petraeus told the panel. The Taliban have lost safe havens, many insurgent leaders have been killed or captured, and hundreds of reconcilable mid-level leaders and fighters have been reintegrated into Afghan society, he said.
Meanwhile, Petraeus added, Afghan forces have grown in numbers and capabilities, and security improvements have meant real progress in governance and the economy.
"None of this has been easy," the general said. "The progress achieved has entailed hard fighting and considerable sacrifice. There have been tough losses along the way, and there have been setbacks as well as successes. Indeed, the experience has been akin to that of a roller coaster ride. The trajectory has generally been upward since last summer, but there certainly have been significant bumps and difficult reverses at various points."
The Taliban will try to regain momentum this spring, Petraeus said.
"We believe that we will be able to build on the momentum achieved in 2010, though that clearly will entail additional tough fighting," he added.
Comments
"Our core objective is, of course, ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for al-Qaida,"
So this then is The strategic end?
I'm not faulting GEN P here, he is the military commander chartged with what appears to be ovrall implementation.
However, are the ways and means that we are employing (and to some degree will cntinue to employ) the most appropriate given what we now know about the way AQ pulled off 9/11? What about the reform in the ways we collect, distribute, colloborate and use/act on intelligene. What about the other types of reform in domestic and foreign policy.
"Achieving that objective requires that we help Afghanistan develop sufficient capabilities to secure and govern itself, and that effort requires the execution of the comprehensive civil-military effort on which we are now embarked."
It sounds like we have misidentified the broader objective of preventing a large scale terrorist attack that threatens our security and costs numerous resources into something else. It is starting to sound like that the thinking is that if we succeed in developing Afghanistan into a viable state by our standards, then we succeed in our efforts to defeat AQ and prevent another attack on the scale of 9/11.
The ref. to just recently having acquired the resources is starting to sound like our strategic decision making is being influenced by sunk costs rather then good logic.
Again, I'm not faulting GEN P or the rest of our uniformed leadership, they are doing and saying exactly what they see and believe in tune with their responsibilities. But it also appears our civilian leadership have unduly abdicated their responsibility to make the right strategic arguments.
"In a typical 90-day period, in fact, precision operations by U.S. special mission units and their Afghan partners alone kill or capture some 360 targeted insurgent leaders," Petraeus said.
So, since SOF was killing upwards of 3,000 in a 180-day timeframe a few years ago, does this mean we are killing less or that we are running out of insurgents?
"Our core objective is, of course, ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again become a sanctuary for al-Qaida," Petraeus told the panel. "Achieving that objective requires that we help Afghanistan develop sufficient capabilities to secure and govern itself, and that effort requires the execution of the comprehensive civil-military effort on which we are now embarked."
Why are we so stuck on these assumptions- that AQ will find sanctuary if we leave, that we have to or even CAN help Afghanistan develop capabilities to govern itself, that what we are doing right now helps them develop capabilities to secure themselves (that are sustainable), and that it requires such a comprehensive effort- or that we are even executing such an effort??? GIRoA has NO will to prosecute COIN against their "wayward" cousins and we aren't building much- if anything- that is sustainable even if they wanted to.
If security has been improved, why have so many more civilians been killed? And, if the progress so far is "fragile and reversible" and that "much difficult work lies ahead." Can we afford to borrow so much money from the Chinese to pay for it. Keeping in mind, we can't afford to keep thousands of US schools open. And why, after so much has been written about the massive waste and corruption our aid money contributes to the bad situation, why is it continued?