In an effort to limit the number of additional troops sent to Afghanistan, it looks like the Obama administration has moved toward an "enclave" strategy, protecting 10 population centers, or, “McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country." Part of the reason for this logic is the understanding that troops in rural areas are motivating local Afghans to join the insurgency, unlike ideological fighters in the Taliban. But a range of officials made the case that many insurgents fighting Americans in distant locations are motivated not by jihadist ideology, but by local grievances, and are not much of a threat to the United States or to the government in Kabul.At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the Taliban is an indigenous force — nor does it need to in order to protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that would eventually take over the mission.Emphasis mine. Interestingly, these are some of the same ideas that Matthew Hoh, the Foreign Service officer who resigned over the strategic muddle in Afghanistan, suggested would be proper in lieu of actual withdrawal. It's not clear to me that sending additional troops is still necessary, but it's good to see at least the glimmerings of realization that a war predicated on destroying al-Qaeda does not call for a massive counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan.
-- Tim Fernholz
