Is Counterinsurgency the Best Strategy for Afghanistan?
How should the Obama administration proceed?
Counterinsurgency strategy seeks to turn local populations against insurgents by providing protection and building trust. But it takes time, troops, and cash. Can it be more effective in the long run than counterterrorism or other methods that cost less and may cause fewer casualties? In this week's edition of U.S. News Weekly, James Danly, Iraq war veteran and director at the Institute for the Study of War, argues for a counterinsurgency plan, while Gian P. Gentile, U.S. Army colonel and West Point professor of history, argues against it. What do you think? What strategy will be most effective in Afghanistan? Take our poll and post your thoughts below.
Previously: Is Global Warming a Real Problem?
Reader Comments
CI v. CT
Mr. Danly,
I read your position, and the position of the gentleman who supports the strategy of counterterrorism. I'm responding to yours because I'm not sure the good Colonel really thought his position out. Rather than let his position stand alone as the sole, sadly insufficient answer to your defense of counterinsurgency, please allow me to put my two cents in for Counter-terrorism as the strategy we should adopt in Afghanistan...
1) The Afghan society is tribal. Cut off the heads of these Taliban groups, and the bodies will wither. They are not classic terrorist networks--they are populist uprisings that have gelled around certain charismatic individuals. If we could just destroy them with intelligence-driven strikes and well-placed missiles from Predator Drones, their followers would fall out with each other and concentrate on squabbling over power in the organization rather than targeting institutions in Afghanistan.
2) Counter-terrorism does not necessarily generate the ill-will toward Americans that is commonly cited as its undoing. This ill-will is generally attributed to Americans largely because the population of a village, having watched their neighbor, Mr. Taliban Sympathizer plus the 4-man Taliban team transiting through with a suicide vest bound for Kabul, then look around for someone to blame and notice the ISAF-populated FOB at the top of the hill. Two plus two generally equals four. If we were to leave, and the house still explodes, who's to say that they don't attribute the house exploding (struck by a Predator Drone in both examples) to infighting between different networks within the Taliban? Or just criminal elements? There's nothing to suggest that we're the ones who've done anything. That doesn't hold with a Delta strike, of course. But then, maybe we don't even need them. Maybe we're finally at a point where air power alone really can bring a determined enemy to its knees.
3) Our UAV fleet requires more development, and Counter-terrorism in Afghanistan offers us a great opportunity to refine tactics and equipment. Allowing them to function more or less on their own is a great way to test their capabilities and improve the technology in an environment where there is almost no threat to their safety.
4) There is no price on an American life. If ultimate victory in Afghanistan means deploying more soldiers, and accepting higher casualties, simply to bring a third-world country (with no substantial natural resources of which to speak) into the 20th century, we must scale back the scope of our ambition. Highly trained SOF and Delta strike teams operating out of nearby countries (or maybe not), with 24-hour UAV coverage on the border, will give us a low-cost, low-risk alternative to putting boots in harm's way.
Clean House
"Peter"If we come home without O.B.L's head in a basket-then we would have round up every muslim -I mean EVERY single one & send them packing in order to be safe.They have nothing but conquest on their agenda - don't know about you but I'm not interested.It is more advantageous to finish it in Afghanistan.It took the West from 1945 to 91 to outlast the Soviets in Berlin & the rest of Eastern Europe.They finally departed because they knew we were united behind Reagan -the same can't be said today because we have someone in the Oval Office who has no feel of what it is like to be an American.He knows the people don't know or trust him...it's no secret to friend or foe.
My 2 Cents
For a longer term solution, there needs to be some type of Middle Eastern version of NATO.
That way, they can take control of regional affairs so that the US isn't perceived as Globocop, and doesn't have to play Globocop (we can't keep it up, or we will be stretched too thin, militarily).
It's clear no one's figured out a short term solution that's workable, so far, so at the very least, someone should put a longer term plan on the table.
advertisement
