THE WHITE House yesterday insisted it would not be rushed into sending more troops to Afghanistan in spite of a blunt warning from the top US general in the country that the West’s mission risked “failure” without further reinforcements.
By raising the prospect of a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Taliban, Stanley McChrystal raised the pressure on Barack Obama to raise troop levels in Afghanistan in the hope of turning around a war that could define his presidency.
But yesterday the administration said Mr Obama was concentrating on “getting the strategy right”, rather than sending more troops.
“We’re going to conduct that strategic assessment . . . before we make resource decisions, rather than having this go the other way around,” said Robert Gibbs, the presidential spokesman.
In his 66-page assessment, Gen McChrystal said that the only way to tackle the Taliban insurgency would be to win the support of the Afghan public by overcoming resentment against foreign troops and the western-backed government in Kabul.
“Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term [next 12 months] – while Afghan security capacity matures – risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” said Gen McChrystal, who assumed command of the international forces of Afghanistan in June. Leavening his report with a note of optimism, he added: “While the situation is serious, success is still achievable.”
The assessment, obtained by the Washington Post, intensifies the debate over whether Mr Obama should stake his reputation on backing a security and nation-building exercise with few parallels in modern history, or define success in Afghanistan more modestly.
Gen McChrystal is preparing a separate request for more troops. But Mr Gibbs said he did not expect Gen McChrystal to send the resource request for “a little bit”, while Mr Obama is still analysing overall strategy.
Lasting peace would depend on an expansion of the local army and police, Gen McChrystal argued. He said the Afghan army needed to increase from its current force of 92,000 soldiers to 240,000 troops. The White House had previously endorsed a plan to expand the army to 134,000 by 2011.
The confidential report, submitted last month, is unsparing in its assessment of the challenges international forces face in Afghanistan. “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and Isaf’s own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government,” it says.
– (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009)
Main points: McChrystal's assessment
Despite some progress being made, many indicators point to a general deterioration in the overall state of the country. If the government were to fall to the Taliban, he says, Afghanistan could again become a base for terrorism.
A "jump" in resources, both civilian and military, is needed to defeat the insurgency. While not outlining any specific numbers, he says Afghanistan has been historically under-resourced and remains so today. Resources will not win the war, but "under-resourcing" could lose it.
Instead of concentrating on "seizing terrain" and "destroying" insurgents, the objective must be to gain the support of the population. A perception that international forces have an uncertain resolve, he says, makes Afghans reluctant to align with them against the Taliban.
The Afghan National Security Forces is not large enough to
fight the Taliban. The size of the Afghan army needs to increase from 134,000 to an estimated 240,000. There are currently around 92,000 soldiers in the army.
The Afghan police force, which lags years behind the army, needs to grow from 84,000 police officers to 160,000, he says.
– (Reuters)