There's a growing cottage industry of skepticism about recommitting military and development resources to Afghanistan, as both Presidential contenders plan to do. The Taliban has reconstituted itself relatively effectively from its base in Western Pakistan, and as this article points out, presents a serious problem -- the linkages between Afghan Taliban, Pakistani Taliban and Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence are deepening, all while Al Qaeda makes a haven in the same area. Especially given Pakistan's status as a nuclear power, maintaining security and stability in the region becomes a huge priority. And then there's this:
The objectives of the war have become increasingly uncertain in a conflict where Taliban leaders say they do not feel the need to control territory, at least for now, or to outfight American and NATO forces to defeat them — only to outlast them in a region that is in any case their home.
But before we figure out our objectives, we need to know what the U.S. can do in Afghanistan. First, it's worth noting the various differences between Iraq and Afghanistan -- the relative popularity of the U.S. and unpopularity of the Taliban being one of the most important. The plans currently on the table from the presidential candidates generally involve sending 10,000 troops to the country to improve the security situation -- the "Afghanistan Surge" or "Strategic Redeployment." Just as with the Iraq Surge, this move would improve security in the country, but without political and diplomatic gains would ultimately be a mere band-aid.
U.S. strategic objectives should reflect this, and so priorities should include efforts to control the Pakistan border, strengthen the Afghan National Army and Police, limit the influence of the Taliban in Pakistan, and co-opt local Taliban leaders into the existing Afghan government. If we don't pay attention to these details -- particularly the focus on Pakistani domestic affairs -- an escalation in Afghanistan won't be worth much. At the same time, the region is becoming a nexus of every major national security concern, from terrorism to rogue states to nuclear proliferation, and while I'd prefer to see policies that would address these problems without the deployment of more troops, I'm not sure they are viable.
--Tim Fernholz
