Heraldnet.com
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 5:58 am
LocalNorthwestNation & WorldPoliticsSpecial ReportsPhotosColumnistsMultimedia 
Herald Editorial Board

Bob Bolerjack,
Opinion Editor
bolerjack@heraldnet.com

Carol MacPherson,
Editorial Writer
cmacpherson@
heraldnet.com


Allen Funk,
Herald Publisher
funk@heraldnet.com

Kim Heltne,
Assistant to the Publisher
heltne@heraldnet.com

Send letters to the editor by e-mail to letters@heraldnet.com, by fax to 425-339-3458 or mail to The Herald - Letters, P.O. Box 930, Everett, WA 98206.

 
WEEK IN REVIEW
Tuesday
Two suspects sought in Everett shooting that in...
School levies in Snohomish County all passing, ...
Police seek witnesses in two accidents
Monday


Lynnwood woman knew area's stories long before ...
Everett rethinks boutique wineries
A tidy lawn could be law in Lynnwood
Sunday


Marysville family comes together amid devastati...
Monroe Correctional Complex to lessen security ...
Extra patrols will be watching for drunken driv...
Saturday


Olympics are in the air
Everett police officers cleared in 2008 shootin...
Edmonds woman leaves gift of millions
Friday


Budget squeeze may close beloved Trafton school
Endgame near on airport flight debate?
Aaron Reardon laments political sparring with c...
Thursday


4-car police pileup in Everett under investigation
Edmonds educator, famous announcer dies
Bill would suspend limits on tax hikes
Wednesday


Citizenship classes: All for a better life
Many Snohomish County kids haven't had second d...
Snohomish County jail thrives under sheriff's m...
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion Columnists   Print This Article  Email This Page  Subscribe Now! facebook digg reddit del.icio.us fark stumble

 
ADVERTISEMENT

 
HAVE YOUR SAY
Feel strongly about something? Share it with the community by writing a letter to the editor.
You’ll need to include your name, address and daytime phone number. (We’ll only publish your name and hometown.) We reserve the right to edit letters, but if you keep yours to 250 words or less, we won’t ask you to shorten it. If your letter is published, please wait 30 days before submitting another.
Send it to:
E-mail: letters@heraldnet.com
Mail: Letters section
The Herald
P.O. Box 930
Everett, WA 98206
Fax: 425-339-3458
Have a question about letters? Contact Carol MacPherson (cmacpherson@heraldnet.com or 425-339-3472).
 
Published: Sunday, November 22, 2009

Obama’s Afghanistan decision: How much time to buy

WASHINGTON — While military officers wait for President Obama to conclude his agonizingly slow review of Afghanistan policy, they’ve been reading a paper by an Army Special Forces operative arguing that the only hope for success in that country is to work with tribal leaders.

This tribal approach has widespread support, in principle. The problem is that, in practice, the U.S. has often moved in the opposite direction in recent years. Rather than supporting tribal leaders, American policies have sometimes had the effect of undermining their ability to stand up to the Taliban.

The paper by Maj. Jim Gant, titled “One Tribe at a Time,” has been spinning around the Internet for the past month. It contends that in an Afghanistan that has never had a strong central government, “nothing else will work” than a decentralized, bottom-up approach. “We must support the tribal system because it is the single, unchanging political, social and cultural reality in Afghan society,” he insists.

Gant recounts his experience leading a Special Forces “A-team” in Konar province in 2003. His soldiers briefly became part of the Pashtun tribal family, fighting alongside a local leader whose followers straddled the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s a passionate story that evokes an Afghan warrior culture that has enticed foreign adventurers for 150 years.

But will this tribal strategy work? The U.S. thought so in 2003 and 2004, when Gant and many others were sent out with small teams to chase al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents. Back then, I’m told, the Special Forces teams had more than 5,000 tribal fighters under arms.

But U.S. officials began to worry that by arming the tribes, they were encouraging Afghanistan’s old curse of warlordism. So after Hamid Karzai’s election as president in 2004, they focused instead on developing Afghanistan’s national army and police. They convinced the Tajik tribal militia known as the Northern Alliance, a key ally against al-Qaida, to lay down its weapons.

Unfortunately, this top-down strategy left the tribes vulnerable to the Taliban, which was rebuilding its networks. As the Taliban’s influence spread, U.S. strategists looked again to the tribes as a counterinsurgency force. They were encouraged by the example of Iraq, where the Sunni tribal movement had stopped al-Qaida’s advance.

As tribal politics have come back in fashion in Afghanistan over the past year, a number of experiments have been launched. The “Afghan Public Protection Program” is working with tribal leaders in Wardak province and elsewhere. The “Community Defense Initiative” is recruiting and training local militias in western Afghanistan. Across the country, “CAAT” units (short for CounterInsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team) are working on local development and security projects.

The U.S. approach in Afghanistan now is a mix of national and local, government and tribe, top-down and bottom-up. There are frantic plans to expand the national army and police, even as the Northern Alliance rearms its fighters. That’s one reason Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s strategy is confusing — it’s going in several directions at once, looking for game-changing opportunities to halt the Taliban’s advance.

This jumble of ad hoc ideas isn’t necessarily a bad thing: Similar experimentation in Iraq helped produce the unlikely network that finally began to improve security there. But it requires a basic decision by the White House that the fight in Afghanistan is worth the human, economic and political price.

Obama’s slow-motion process of decision carries its own costs. The president has been so concerned about finding an early off-ramp that the public must wonder whether he really wants to get on at all. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, 52 percent say the war hasn’t been worth it, up 13 points from last December. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the delay has helped prompt a new wave of capital flight as Afghans rush to get their money out before the U.S. pulls the plug.

This is a transactional White House, so the president is looking for deliverables: A new commitment by Karzai to fight corruption; a new pledge by NATO allies to send more troops; a new plan to speed the training of Afghan forces. That checklist may help reassure Obama, but in the end, he will still have to roll the dice.

Even Maj. Gant, the gung-ho Special Forces operative, agrees there’s only a limited time to make any policy work: “Make no mistake,” he writes, “the people (or politicians) of the U.S. will get tired of the war and will eventually make the U.S. military pull out.” Obama’s decision, in effect, is how much time to buy.



David Ignatius is a Washington Post columnist. His e-mail address is davidignatius@washpost.com.

COMMENTS | Be the first to comment

Log in or register to post a new comment.


To read other terms and conditions, click here

Other Advertisers
TODAY'S TOP JOBS
 View All Top Jobs 
Top Cars
Top Homes

ADVERTISEMENT