Home › Policy › Strategic Challenges › U.S.-Asia

Can President Obama’s New Afghanistan Strategy Succeed?

Share

Ashraf Ghani, 2009 Afghan presidential candidate, at the Asia Society in New York, December 8, 2009. (Asia Society)
enlarge image

Ashraf Ghani, 2009 Afghan presidential candidate, at the Asia Society in New York, December 8, 2009. (Asia Society)

NEW YORK, December 8, 2009 - President Barack Obama's Afghan strategy, which includes the deployment of 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, will not succeed unless the issues of corruption in Afghanistan and the legitimacy of the Afghan government are addressed, according to experts.

"For the Obama strategy to succeed, you need a credible, local partner," said Peter Galbraith, former Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Afghanistan, at a discussion at the Asia Society. "You need a government that can provide public services, honest administration, and win the confidence of the people. That doesn't exist."

He stressed that the American goal of "disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al Qaeda" is not achievable in Afghanistan without having the Afghan goal of a peaceful, stable country. 

According to Amin Tarzi, director of Middle East Studies at the Marine Corps University, the issue of legitimacy of the Afghan government needs to be addressed to combat corruption. "The majority of Afghans... do not believe in the structure of their government, they do not believe that the system in place will last," he said.

For the Afghan government to gain legitiimacy, Tarzi said they need demonstrative action against corruption, such as prosecuting "big fish" or people who Afghans consider "untouchable."

The panel, which also included moderator and Asia Society Executive Vice President Jamie Metzl and 2009 Afghan Presidential candidate Ashraf Ghani, also pointed out that the Afghan strategy cannot succeed without the support of Pakistan. "Afghanistan and Pakistan are part of the same problem," said Galbraith.

As part of Obama's strategy, the new troops are expected to tackle the Taliban in the volatile southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan. According to Ghani, however, use of force is necessary but not sufficient. "You can soften [the Taliban] by force but you cannot bring them in unless a just order is created," he said.

Although the panel stressed that the issues of Afghan corruption, Pakistan, and the Taliban are three difficult challenges that Obama's strategy faces in Afghanistan, it pointed out signs of hope. "The Taliban is weak," said Galbraith. "It's limited to the Pashtun part of the country... and in the Pashtun community, people don't support it, they simply don't support the government." Galbraith further explained that in Afghanistan, there is no hostility toward foreign military presence that exists in Arab Iraq. "There is a scope for partnership," he said.

Reported by Stephanie Valera, Asia Society Online

Do you think President Obama's new strategy can succeed? Join the discussion below.

Orchard | 05:19:10 04:09pm
This is a classic example of a superpower removing one corrupt government and replacing it with another. The time will come when Afganistan will have to be dealt with again as the Taliban eventually retake the country and relationships with the West turn sour. This needs a co-ordinated world effort to ensure that the future leaders of Afganistan promote human rights, world peace and anti-corruption.
rich | 02:10:10 03:13am
us as citizens, are largely unaware as to why our government does what it does. with that said, i would like to bring all troops home and retain a defensive posture from here out.. of course, its not going to happen, but,i think our pocketbook is calling for some serious changes in our expenditures including, military spending.
Hameed Shaheen | 12:09:09 12:05pm
The world history graphically demonstrates that after every war the belligerents come around a table. The present South Asian rim war cannot be an exception to repeated lessons of history. To me President Obama wishes to tread a right path to wriggle out of the worthless quagmire worst like Vietnam where losses and gains finally tapered to bloody exit. But if the wise Americans can afford more blood letting in return for nothing, it is their decision, not of history. An area already under their influence need their revision of vision and President Obama, I think, has reached the crux of the hard matter.
Jim Nickel | 12:03:09 02:35pm
As a draftable youth in 1969, Viet Nam informs my politics. There is a bit of symmetry here: the draft was the force behind moral change and resistance in this country in 1969; the economy will be the force behind moral change and resistance in 2009. The two wars are being pushed with much the same disfunctional thought--domino theory vs terrorist fear. Historians will wonder years from now why the USA spent all its wealth and power invading three small countries in Asia: Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan with nothing to show.
Indranila Gupta | 12:02:09 10:15pm
I think success in Afghanistan depends largely on two key factors: first, the Afghan central administration has to ensure good governance, root out corruption, end warlord politics, and adopt a novel approach towards nation-building. Second, the Pakistan government has to stop cross-border infiltrations and destroy the terrorist sanctuaries. A troop surge, as much as it is good news, cannot make much of a difference without the accomplishment of these goals. That said, with additional troops, the U.S. government must put a proper infrastructure in place before starting to withdraw - a system which has a trained Afghan army, police force and the involvement of key local actors who have largely been ignored due to the societal void created by the current administration. Last but not least, a solid partnership is crucial and I am hopeful that the U.S. and Afghanistan will be able to work out a mutually-benefiting partnership this time for the sake of the project’s success.
jehangir noor | 12:03:09 10:49am
What does 'SUCCESS IN AFGHANISTAN ' mean exactly ? Do we really think we can eradicate the Taliban ? We are not even sure of their ideology , sometimes we believe there is good taliban and bad taliban . We support an absolute corrupt impotent president who has made deals with god knows who . We are unable to construct a clear cut policy in the region and with every shifting tide we write fresh notes in the sand. Thirty thousand more troops ? does this sound familiar ? George Bush did the same in Iraq , and is the current day Iraq what succes looks like ?
Phil Gisser | 12:02:09 06:33pm
Assuming Obama and his advisors have used the past months well and followed a logical priocess -- listened to all sides, heard all suggestions, established reasonable scenarios, and evaluated the potential results of taking various actions in light of those scenarios -- I am satisfied that he has probably selected the optimum program of action. Unfortunately, the optimum course of action might still end up with negative consequences. There seem to be no good options, and the opimum course of action will probably lead us to the least bad of the many potential outcomes, all the rest of which would probably be worse. If he has followed the right process, I, for one, with less information available, am not competent to second-guess his decision, nor do I think there are many people who are. I would only like to see the process laid out in more detail to feel comfortable that the least worst course of action has been selected.
Hassan Abbas (Asia Society Bernard Schwartz Fellow) | 12:02:09 04:32pm
I think President Obama made a wise decision keeping in view the ground realities. The 'surge' will give a categorical message to Taliban and Al-Qaeda that the US/NATO forces are ready for a renewed military campaign to teach them a lesson; by emphacising partnership with Pakistan he conveyed to Pakistani leadership that they have to fulfill their responsibilities in FATA region and target all extremists including Afghan Taliban; and by announcing a withdrawal timetable he has given an ultimatum to Afghan government to put its house in order . This set of policy goals also indirectly recognizes that Western 'nation building project' in Afghanistan was a gigantic enterprise which couldnot be managed by outsiders. The only missing link in all of this relates to absence of a regional plan to help Afghanistan stabilize. Perhaps, Obama administration is expecting that India, Pakistan, Turkey, China and Russia will take initiative in this regard. If these neighbors of Afghanistan fail to reach a consensus on how all of them can work together to help Afghanistan after 2011, then Afghanistan can face another deadly civil war in coming years.
John A.La Grua | 12:02:09 12:50pm
The Afghanistan venture can only bring disaster.Ignoring historiys lessons is a fools game.Great nations and empires have in the past squandered blood and treasure in hopeless wars.Athens in Sicily ,Roman Republic, British Empire ,French colonialism and the Soviets.The fundamental flaw here is that Afghanistan is not a country but a tribal aggregation which depite internal conflict opposes foreign military intrusions.The US is financially exhausted after the Cold War Huge continued military expenses funded by the Chinese increases our debt while domestic needs are neglected.Obama has shown a lack of wisdom which ,despite his intelligence ,requires experience and maturity.How many of those young cadets at West Point will be sacrificed in this gruesome folly.US foreign policy needs a complete reformation based on recognition that resources are finite and the new reality of shifts in geopolitical and economic power.
Oistein | 12:02:09 11:25am
Afghan blogger Nasim Fekrat argues that the US and its allies must finish the job they started, but not so hastily... He writes: After a long debate over increasing troops in Afghanistan, finally, President Obama said that he has decided to send around 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan. Now, deploying 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is a good idea but I’m doubtful that this will work as a long-term strategy to “finish the job.” A long-term strategy to mitigate the violence and end the war in Afghanistan is to train and equip the Afghan National Army. To read the rest of his blog please visit: http://www.afghanlord.org/2009/12/finish-job-but-not-so-hastily.html

Post new comment

Your comments are welcome, please adhere to our guidelines

Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; nor will profane, abusive or threatening posts.

Keep it short (150 words or less), Stay on topic.

Asia Society reserves the right to moderate all comments and remove or edit for guideline violations. Thank you.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.