On Afghanistan

It's hard for me to say clearly and with great specificity just what we should do in Afghanistan.  It is much easier to just put out there some of the things I've been reading, seeing, and hearing that are affecting my thinking.  Here are some key items.

- A PBS Frontline documentary, called "Obama's War," that paints what seems to be an accurate picture of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the options that the President is considering.

- An article from Peter Bergen - who as far as I can tell, has been and is one of the most knowledgeable commentators on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the ongoing war - which argues for increasing the American troop presence in Afghanistan, especially in the more remote tribal regions.

- A letter of resignation from a state department official who wrote, "I fail to see the value or worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year old civil war."  This part especially gives me pause: "...I have observed that the bulk of the insurgency fights not for the white banner of the Taliban, but rather against the presence of foreign soldiers and taxes imposed by an unrepresentative government in Kabul."

- A Fareed Zakaria interview of foreign policy expert Thomas Ricks, in which Ricks seems to argue in favor of counter-insurgency in the Afghan cities (Kabul and Kandahar, for example) and counter-terrorism (lighter troop presence focused on tactical strikes on terrorist targets) in the country-side.  You can watch it below (the interview with Ricks ends around the 10-minute mark):


- Another bloggingheads episode in which Bob Wright airs some of his concerns about Afghanistan with Mickey Kaus, who is more eager to try some kind of Afghanistan surge and see how it works.

As I said before, it's hard for me to say exactly what I think we should do in Afghanistan.  I find the Ricks approach, which has been termed the "Biden in the country, Petraeus in the city" strategy, to be on the surface more promising than Bergen's idea of surging into the remote tribal areas.  As I've said before, I just think that kind of effort would require a commitment of huge amounts of troops and resources, as well as a slimmer chance of success.  The Ricks strategy, in the long term, should result in a strengthening of the Afghan government in the most heavily-populated areas, with an ongoing effort to destabilize and disrupt terrorist activities in the countryside (which could be carried out by the American military until the Afghan military is better prepared to take on the task).  This strategy seems to accomplish the major goals of a) significantly limiting the capabilities of terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, b) securing a democratically-elected central government with limited support and power in the countryside, and c) showing Pakistan that we are seriously committed to a stable Afghan state that will act as a partner in their war against radical militants.  It's not a perfect solution and it would not result in a "Mission Accomplished" banner, but it might be the best choice we have to pick from.