The Strategic Debate Over Afghanistan

By George Friedman

After U.S. airstrikes killed scores of civilians in western Afghanistan this past week, White House National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones said the United States would continue with the airstrikes and would not tie the hands of U.S. generals fighting in Afghanistan. At the same time, U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus has cautioned against using tactics that undermine strategic U.S. goals in Afghanistan — raising the question of what exactly are the U.S. strategic goals in Afghanistan. A debate inside the U.S. camp has emerged over this very question, the outcome of which is likely to determine the future of the region.

On one side are President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a substantial amount of the U.S. Army leadership. On the other side are Petraeus — the architect of U.S. strategy in Iraq after 2006 — and his staff and supporters. An Army general — even one with four stars — is unlikely to overcome a president and a defense secretary; even the five-star Gen. Douglas MacArthur couldn’t pull that off. But the Afghan debate is important, and it provides us with a sense of future U.S. strategy in the region. Read more

Religious extremists threaten Pakistan’s existence: Petraeus

WASHINGTON: Religious extremists operating along the Pak-Afghan border pose a direct threat to Pakistan’s existence, the commander of US forces in the region, General David Petraeus, warned on Wednesday.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on US President Barack Obama’s new strategy, Gen. Petraeus also vowed to take the fight to insurgents in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He did not explain how he planned to do so but last President Obama said that the United States would pursue ‘high-value’ terrorist targets inside Pakistan but would consult Islamabad before doing so.

Also last week, Obama’s National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones indicated that the US would continue drone attacks inside Pakistan as they had proven ‘effective’ against the militants.

Gen. Petraeus told the senate panel that the Taliban and al-Qaeda groups based in the border area were ‘an ever more serious threat to Pakistan’s very existence.’

The Pakistani military, he said, had stepped up operations against the militants but more action was needed.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin warned that he did not agree with the administration’s contention that progress in Afghanistan depended on success on the Pakistan side of the border.

Afghanistan’s future should not be tied totally to the Pakistan government’s decisions, he said, adding that he remained sceptical about Pakistan’s ability to secure its border.

‘I remain sceptical that Pakistan has either the will or the capability to secure their border,’ he said.

Senator Levin earlier urged Pakistan to prove it’s willing to take on extremists within its own borders before the US delivers financial aid or weapons to Islamabad. The senator said he did not believe the United States can buy stability in Pakistan.

Senator Levin said he would support economic and military aid only after he saw that the Pakistani government understood that it’s in its own interest to battle its internal insurgent threats. So far, he said he is not convinced.

‘If I thought we could buy stability, I would buy it,’ the Democrat told reporters. ‘I have no reluctance in purchasing stability if it’s effective. But I don’t think it’s effective unless the recipient of the support sees where the threat is to them. I think otherwise it can backfire.’

Gen. David Petraeus, however, disagreed with Senator Levin’s scepticism about additional US aid to Pakistan, insisting that the US assistance would help Pakistan fight the insurgents.
Read More…