It was believed that the Bush administration did not provide enough US troops for this central front in the war against al-Qaeda, while all the effort went to the distraction in Iraq. President Obama believed a smarter strategy in Afghanistan would produce positive results. And a smarter strategy required adopting a counter-insurgency approach with more boots on the ground. It was clear that more troops were needed to do what was necessary for a successful counter-insurgency strategy: to clear, hold and build on territory and to protect the population rather than putting all the effort on attacking the terrorists. After all, the same policy had worked in Iraq with the so-called surge of US troops in 2007.Now the Obama administration appears to be having second thoughts about engaging in a similar “surge” in Afghanistan. The rationale for a counter-insurgency tactic in Afghanistan is under severe scrutiny by the White House and especially by Vice President Joe Biden's office. The logic for maintaining a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan centers on one key tenet: it will deny safe haven to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Afghanistan must not be allowed to become a haven for terrorist groups again. Yet today, skeptics argue that the top al-Qaeda leadership is not in Afghanistan. They decamped to Pakistan years ago. Skeptics also rightly point out that terrorists who are determined to establish a safe haven for themselves can choose among several unstable countries besides Afghanistan, and US forces cannot secure them all. For instance, why is the US not equally concerned about Somalia or Tajikistan ?
There is also another question concerning the logic of safe havens and putting more troops on the ground to avoid them. How important is it for terrorist groups to have a physical safe haven? And how much does a safe haven in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia or Tajikistan increase the danger of terrorist attacks in the US homeland? Paul Pillar, a respected former intelligence analyst, argued in a recent Washington Post op-ed that we need to challenge conventional wisdom in answering these questions. According to Pillar: “The operations most important to future terrorist attacks do not need a safe haven. Only a few recruits are required for even very deadly terrorism. For instance, the preparations most important to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States.”
Pillar also points out: “In the past couple of decades, international terrorist groups have thrived by exploiting globalization and information technology, which has lessened their dependence on physical havens. By utilizing networks such as the Internet, terrorist organizations have become more network-like, not beholden to any one headquarters. A significant jihadist terrorist threat to the United States persists, but that does not mean it will consist of attacks instigated and commanded from a South Asian haven, or that it will require a haven at all. Al-Qaeda's role in that threat is now less one of commander than of ideological lodestar, and for that role a haven is almost meaningless.”
Such views reflect why Vice President Biden is thinking about the need to send tens of thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The Obama administration has already decided a few months ago to increase the US troop presence by almost 20,000. Biden has argued against increasing the number of US combat troops in Afghanistan, currently scheduled to total 68,000 by the end of the year. Like many congressional Democrats and the growing majority of Americans in opinion polls Biden is concerned that deploying more US troops could be counterproductive.
Biden favors preserving the current force levels and stepping up Predator drone strikes on al-Qaeda leaders and increasing training for Afghan forces. He believes sending more troops would give the Taliban more political ammunition to foment public opposition against foreign occupation. Yet General McChrystal, whom President Obama sent to Afghanistan as top commander in May after firing his predecessor, is making his case for additional resources publicly. In a speech last week at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, McChrystal said that "we must show resolve" and warned that "uncertainty disheartens our allies and emboldens our foes."
In short, the Afghanistan conundrum is awaiting a clear answer from President Obama. Will he decide to send thousands more troops or shift from a counter-insurgency strategy to a more high-tech counter-terrorism one? That is the question. And it is not an easy one.
