U.S. Role in the World

In a recently released video message Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri challenged President-Elect Obama’s election promise to send more troops to Afghanistan, saying, “Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them,” and using other language that can only be termed racist propaganda.

I see this latest message as a tactical mistake, reinforcing the view of Al Qaeda in the popular mind as an implacable enemy, building resolve rather than undermining it. A more moderate and conciliatory message focused on the new opportunities presented by Obama’s election would have undermined support for the war at a time of economic uncertainty and suggested a path toward an eventual negotiated settlement. I can only conclude that Al Qaeda is genuinely worried that the new administration will focus on territory closer to them and present a real physical threat to their survival. There seems little doubt that the U.S. will soon send more troops to Afghanistan and challenge our NATO allies to do the same. We are also starting to see the outline of an “awakening council movement” type strategy in Afghanistan that promises to expand the number of tribal allies in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In this CFR interview Barnett Rubin comments on his Foreign Affairs article in which he argues for expanding our outreach not only to local tribal leaders but also to regional powers in order to secure peace in Afghanistan. With any luck, this strategy will really give Al Qaeda something to worry about, and maybe, just maybe, they won’t have time to make any more mocking videos.

Catching Osama bin Laden has become an issue on the campaign trail, with both Barack Obama and John McCain using the fate of the elusive terrorist mastermind to attack each other (CBS News - McCain And Bin Laden). Osama bin Laden is widely believed to be hiding somewhere in the mountainous tribal areas of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan. In their latest issue Foreign Policy magazine asked five Pakistani experts to offer their strategies for catching Osama bin Laden. How important is it for the U.S. to capture Osama?

President Bush has announced that he will send additional military forces to Afghanistan (The New York Times - 8,000 Troops to Leave Iraq Next Year):

President Bush has accepted the recommendation of his senior civilian and military advisers to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq by 8,000 in the early months of next year. […] Mr. Bush also announced a decision to increase American force levels in Afghanistan by about 4,500 troops. “The president’s decision paves the way for us to get even more troops out of Iraq this year and into Afghanistan,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “So the progress our forces are making in Iraq continues to pay big dividends for the commanders in Afghanistan.”

For those still accustomed to thinking about Afghanistan as being safely in the win column I recommend this 2007 Foreign Affairs essay “Saving Afghanistan,” in which Barnett R. Rubin, Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow at New York University’s Center on International Cooperation, warned that Afghanistan was at risk of collapsing into chaos and urged Washington to rethink its strategy and increase its commitment to the country.

The Washington Post reported today that the Taliban insurgency is gaining ground in Pakistan (Clashes Escalate in Third Day of Violence in Pakistan):

Violent clashes between extremist insurgents and Pakistani troops escalated Wednesday in the country’s fractious northwest as Taliban leaders threatened to withdraw their support for peace deals brokered earlier this year with Pakistan’s new government. […] It was the third consecutive day of violence between pro-Taliban extremists and government troops in the formerly serene Swat Valley. After skirmishes erupted near the town of Matta, Pakistani security forces began enforcing a 24-hour curfew on the area, a military spokesman said.

Given the increasing frequency of Taliban cross-border raids into Afghanistan, what can the U.S. do to help Pakistan in this struggle with the Taliban? In “A Pro-Taliban Threat,” Malou Innocent, a Cato Institute foreign policy analyst, writes:

Pro-Taliban militants are currently in talks with one of Pakistan’s provincial governments to enforce Shariah, or Islamic law. Though the deal is meant to stop the spreading Islamist insurgency on Pakistan’s western border with Afghanistan, if passed, the deal will only embolden radicals and undermine U.S. interests in Afghanistan. […] Instead of toothless peace deals, a better strategy would be to isolate and contain the militancy through ‘clear and hold’ operations. Since America has a vested interest in a secure Pakistan, and the capabilities of Pakistan’s Army must be improved substantially, Washington can assist Islamabad by raising the professionalism of Pakistan’s army by increasing the number of joint military-to-military training operations, and enhancing human-intelligence sharing in the tribal areas.

This is a great idea and deserves consideration at the highest levels, but I fear the window may have closed for these kind of joint operations. Such military-to-military operations may have worked better when the U.S. was more closely tied to Gen. Pervez Musharraf rather than the more loosely defined security structure that now exists in Pakistan. Don’t get me wrong, I supported our brief flirtation with Benazir Bhutto and support democracy in Pakistan, but we should also remember the law of unintended consequences. Democracy is messy and often blurs lines of accountability, something we need more of, not less, in a society defined by tribal and clan loyalties. How loosely defined is the internal security situation in Pakistan? According to this report in today’s New York Times, there are fears that Pakistan’s intelligence service has gone rogue, is no longer accountable to the civilian political leadership and is actively supporting the Taliban. If that is the case, the U.S. and allies operating in Afghanistan now have a far larger problem to deal with than a few bands of al Qaeda militants hiding in the northwestern mountains of Pakistan.

The New York Times reported today that a resurgent Taliban is staging new and daring attacks in Afghanistan (9 Americans Die in Afghan Attack):

This year of the Afghanistan war is already proving to be the deadliest since the American-led invasion. Bush administration officials are now considering a redeployment of troops to Afghanistan from Iraq to help deal with the rising threat. Deaths of American troops and their allies for the last two months have been higher than those inflicted in Iraq. In addition, nearly 700 Afghan civilians were killed in the first five months of the year, a marked increase over previous years, United Nations officials have said.

The report notes that Taliban attacks are bing staged from Pakistan and that this is now being publicly acknowledgd by commanders. This poses a severe challenge for U.S. political leadeship, if not the military, as Pakistan is officially an ally in the war.

What strategies can the U.S. use to combat the Taliban and stabilize Afghanistan? In this video presentation to the World Affairs Council of Washington, D.C., Ambassador to Afghanistan William Wood addresses the resurgence of attacks on U.S. troops and Afghani civilians, the growing political unrest, and the role the U.S. can play in stabilizing Afghanistan.