A flawed strategy and a failed war in

Afghanistan
Network News
X Profile
View More Activity
TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Yahoo! Buzz
Reprints

#ArticleCommentsWra
pper { DISPLAY:
block }
COMMENT
0 Comments
BE THE FIRST TO
COMMENT
You must be logged in
to leave a comment.
Log in | Register

Why Do I Have to Log

In Again?
Log In Again?
CLOSE
We've made some
updates to
washingtonpost.com's
Groups, MyPost and
comment pages. We
need you to verify your
MyPost ID by logging
in before you can post
to the new pages. We
apologize for the
inconvenience.

Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings
may be preventing you
from commenting on
and viewing comments
about this item. See
 instructions for fixing
the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include
profanity or personal
attacks or other
inappropriate
comments or material
will be removed from
the site. Additionally,
entries that are
unsigned or contain
"signatures" by
someone other than the
actual author will be
removed. Finally, we
will take steps to block
users who violate any
of our posting
standards, terms of use
or privacy policies or
any other policies
governing this site.
Please review the full
rules governing
commentaries and
discussions. You are
fully responsible for
the content that you
post.
Who's Blogging

» Links to this article

By Katrina vanden HeuvelWednesday, May 26, 2010

Speaking to graduating cadets at West Point on Saturday, President Obama noted the
"ultimate sacrifice" of 78 of their predecessors who gave up their lives in Afghanistan
and Iraq. But he did not mention that just days before, five U.S. soldiers were killed in
Kabul, bringing the toll of American dead in Afghanistan to over 1,000.
As we pass this grim marker, the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan is
foundering because it is fundamentally flawed. It lacks a clear, achievable mission, isn't
in our national security interest and costs too much in treasure and lives.
The counterinsurgency strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghans is failing -- a
Pentagon report last month revealed that only 29 of 121 critical Afghan districts could be
classified as "sympathetic to the government," compared with 48 "supportive of or
sympathetic to" the Taliban. The number of Afghans who rated U.S. and NATO troops
"good" or "very good" dropped from 38 percent in December to 29 percent in March --
perhaps as a result of the civilian casualties that are on the rise.
There is a sense of Taliban momentum -- even Gen. Stanley McChrystal recently
declared, "Nobody is winning," and military officials are now minimizing expectations
for the upcoming Kandahar offensive. The highly touted operation in Marja that began
three months ago has failed to dislodge the Taliban.
The continued occupation of a fiercely independent and tribal Afghanistan -- as well as
the death of tens of thousands of civilians -- engenders anti-Americanism and fuels
terrorist recruitment. Military operations have also pushed violent jihadists across the
border and further destabilized a nuclear-armed Pakistan -- a far greater threat to our
national security than any tenuous al-Qaeda "safe haven" in Afghanistan.
Finally, focusing so many resources on Afghanistan -- where al-Qaeda is now minimally
present -- diverts vital resources from other urgent security needs, including economic
recovery at home. For the first time, the monthly cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds
what we spend in Iraq -- $6.7 billion per month, compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq. At
the end of May, appropriations for both wars will reach over $1 trillion -- mostly
borrowed money that we're not investing at home. Upcoming congressional hearings on
veterans care will demonstrate the human costs. No wonder a majority of Americans --
52 percent -- believe the war "is not worth its costs," according to a recent Washington
Post poll.
A long-overdue alternative strategy begins with a responsible withdrawal of U.S. troops
and support for a regional diplomatic solution, including talks with the Taliban, which
Afghan President Hamid Karzai wants to pursue and America should support
unconditionally. It also includes common-sense counterterrorism measures, intelligence
sharing and targeted development and reconstruction assistance.
The president is instead asking for another $32 billion for the Afghanistan surge in a
supplemental appropriation that is expected to be voted on in the Senate this week, with a
House vote to follow.
But there are signs of a growing opposition. Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter
Jones (R-N.C.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have introduced legislation demanding
an exit strategy and a timetable for withdrawal, and Feingold announced that he will
introduce an amendment to the supplemental based on that legislation.
The House bill has 91 co-sponsors. A strong showing in the House -- where the
amendment would probably receive more than 130 votes -- will demonstrate to the
president that there is increasing concern in Congress and throughout the country about
the danger of an open-ended commitment in Afghanistan. Even though Obama said he
will begin withdrawing troops in July 2011, that is a tentative date at best -- and perhaps
just the beginning of the kind of very slow withdrawal we see now in Iraq.
Vietnam and Iraq both demonstrated how easy it is to get into war and how difficult it is
to get out. We now see that dilemma in Afghanistan. Withdrawal will demand a huge
political lift and may well lead to the question, "What were the last eight years of lost
blood and treasure about?"
Confronting that question honestly is far less costly than continuing a flawed strategy and
a failed war.
Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of The Nation and writes a weekly column
for The Post.