Obama, McCain Plans on Afghan Surge Need Pakistan

[Neo]

Obama, McCain Plans on Afghan Surge Need PakistanKen Fireman

Ken Fireman
Fri Jul 18, 2008

July 18 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama and John McCain, in a rare note of harmony on national security, both want a surge of troops into Afghanistan. Experts say adding forces won't help much in combating insurgents unless Pakistan joins the fight.

Afghanistan will remain vulnerable to attacks as long as Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters have safe havens in neighboring Pakistan, and a bigger U.S. force won't force the Pakistanis to eradicate the sanctuaries, the experts say. A buildup also won't address obstacles to progress such as mistrust between villagers and Afghan security forces or tribal elders' reluctance to resist the insurgents.

``Simply to focus on the level of troops is to focus on just one tree instead of the whole forest,'' said Christine Fair, a South Asia specialist for the policy research firm Rand Corp. who worked in Afghanistan for the United Nations. ``Foreign forces don't win insurgencies. Local forces win insurgencies.''

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Obama, who is set to visit Afghanistan, called July 15 for sending at least two more brigades there, boosting American forces by about a fifth. A brigade consists of about 3,500 soldiers.

His Republican counterpart, McCain, said the same day he would send at least three more brigades. About 36,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, according to the Defense Department.

Iraq, Afghanistan

The rivals' agreement ended with their overlapping endorsement of more troops. Obama, 46, embedded the call in his argument that the U.S. must disengage from Iraq to free up resources for the more important struggle in Afghanistan. McCain, 71, retorted that the U.S. is capable of winning both conflicts.

Much of the debate misses the realities of what is needed to reverse the deteriorating conditions in Afghanistan, according to analysts.

``Both of these guys talk about success in Afghanistan without saying what it is,'' said Fair, who is based in Rand's office in suburban Washington. ``If success is a stable, democratic Afghanistan, that's not attainable.''

A more modest goal, ``like reducing the al-Qaeda threat to something manageable,'' is more realistic, she said.

Even accomplishing that requires neutralizing the insurgents based in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Afghan border. The region was the scene of a July 13 attack by several hundred Taliban fighters on a U.S. outpost that killed nine American troops.

Border Focus

``We can put 500,000 troops in Afghanistan, but if they are not addressing what's going on at the Afghan-Pakistan border we are likely to see some level of Taliban activity continue in Afghanistan,'' said Alan Kronstadt, a South Asia expert for the non-partisan Congressional Research Service in Washington.

Chris Mason, a former U.S. diplomat who worked in Afghanistan's Paktika province bordering Pakistan, described how insurgents intimidate Afghan villagers into cooperating.

The Taliban will enter a village, ``knowing that American security forces are hours away,'' set up a roadblock and haul away people with government-issued ID cards for beatings or killings, Mason said.

As that is happening, Mason said, Taliban fighters are telling local elders: ``We're keeping tabs on who cooperates with the government. When the Americans leave, we'll come back and kill you.''

Before the American forces show up, the Taliban speed off on motorbikes, he said.

Pentagon Views

Senior Pentagon officials agree on the need to destroy the sanctuaries, even as they seek more troops.

``There is no question that the absence of pressure on the Pakistani side of the border is creating an opportunity for more people to cross the border and to launch attacks,'' Defense Secretary Robert Gates said July 16.

Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said he conveyed that message to Pakistani leaders during a visit last week.

McCain has also acknowledged the need for Pakistani action against the insurgents on their territory. ``If the Taliban have uninhibited sanctuary, that makes for a very difficult challenge,'' he told reporters on July 15.

Pakistan's new civilian government has sent mixed signals about its policy toward the sanctuaries, at times authorizing military forays and at other times opening truce talks with the insurgents. The government says it is combating extremism through the selective use of force and a strategy of economic and political development in the tribal regions.

Obama recognizes the need to deal with the sanctuaries and would address it by making U.S. military aid to Pakistan dependent on more aggressive action against the insurgents, said the Illinois senator's foreign-policy adviser, Susan Rice.

Special Envoy

McCain would appoint a special envoy to work with Pakistan and other countries in the region, delivering the message that ``the fight we are fighting in Afghanistan is Afghanistan's fight, Pakistan's fight, our fight,'' said Kori Schake, a foreign-policy adviser to the Arizona senator.

Mason said the U.S. has little leverage over Pakistan. He advocates a strategy of trying to ``inoculate'' Afghans against the insurgents by building up the authority of local elders and training local Afghan security forces.

That path offers a chance of success even if the Taliban continues to hold sway on Pakistan's side of the border, he said.

``All that's changed from Sept. 10, 2001, to today is that Jihadistan has moved 200 miles south,'' Mason said. ``As you and I talk, al-Qaeda is turning out hundreds of terrorists, and the Taliban are the political power in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. And that is pretty alarming.''

Obama, McCain Plans on Afghan Surge Need Pakistan - Yahoo! News

[martialLAW]

Make no mistake . . . the Crusade is coming to Pakistan . . .

Meanwhile, the civilian coalition government has wasted no time in alienating the Pakistani people, betraying the mandate it was given a few months ago and all the while pretending - [not too convincingly] - that surrendering to Washington in its desire to bomb Pakistan is in "the national interest" !?

Work that one out . . .

It is no longer possible for [any government] in Islamabad to perform a balancing act between the wishes of the Pakistani people and the dictates of the United States . . . the people decide the course and direction of their nation. The political establishment had better start to get their [constitutional] priorities right . . . they're not doing a very good job of it, so far.

The country faces the gravest crisis in its history . . . and the Pakistani people feel that America has [yet again] hijacked their government. Even if the government resists the demands of its people and persists in supporting The War On Terror, how can it be regarded as a credible partner for America!?

PM Gilani leads a [spectacularly] unimpressive administration.

[SMustafaMoiz]

Yeah, I agree with Martiallaw.
And Gillani is one of the stupidest men ever, actually saying that Pakistan is a threat.

Obama is only saying that because he wants to pull troops out of Iraq and this seems a good argument for why he is, and also an appeasement (Democrats face more problems among the military than Republicans, take Bill Clinton and Bush Sr).