Mediaboss Marketing

By Ronald E. Neumann By Ronald E. Neumann August 9

Ronald E. Neumann was ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007.

In theory, U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been to train an Afghan army that can fight al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and now the Islamic State and then largely to withdraw. After 16 years, its not surprising that many people think that strategy has failed. In fact, it hasnt really been tried.

The Bush administration didnt think such a force was needed. The Obama administration not only didnt execute its own strategy, it also only grudgingly provided the resources necessary to avoid outright failure. The Trump administration has not increased those inadequate resources. In short, the strategy of trying to build an Afghan security structure that could successfully combat the Taliban only began six years ago and then was undercut after four years scarcely enough time to build a whole new army.

When I left Afghanistan in 2007, our target of a 216,000-strong Afghan army and police force was unmet. This security force included no serious air force, artillery, logistics or medical services, since it was designed on the assumption that the war was largely over. Our advisory presence was small in the army and almost nonexistent in the police. Iraq was soaking up all available resources, and my warnings that the fighting was about to get worse were ignored. Only in fall 2009 did the Obama administration decide to build to the current goal of 352,000 security personnel, including essential supporting forces. That effort did not begin to receive funding and equipment until a year later.

These expanded goals were only really pursued for four years and were heavily undercut by policy shifts. Virtually every aspect of the training was rushed and under-resourced. The development of essential support functions, from logistics to artillery to air, was delayed for a year so that all available training facilities could be devoted to getting infantry into the battle. U.S. and NATO training teams never reached much over 50 percent of required personnel, and even that low level took several years to achieve. Advisory teams were delegated to the National Guard and Reserves rather than the regular U.S. Army, a clear indication that this was a lower priority effort. Proper advanced training for these teams took several years to set up.

Then, the decision to end U.S. involvement in active combat by 2014 converted a conditions-based strategy to one driven by Washington timelines. Withdrawal of advisers consistently outpaced the readiness of the Afghans to take over. By 2014, many of our forces were devoted to getting packed up and out of the country rather than to the fighting. But worse was yet to come.

Critically, Afghan security forces trained with U.S. and NATO forces, and thus learned to fight as we do with air support. But from January 2014 to November 2016, that air support was withdrawn. The Obama administration declared that we are no longer at war with the Taliban. This nonsensical phrase, which I heard from senior officials at the National Security Council, left the Taliban free, except in the most extreme circumstances, to reinforce, maneuver and mass for attacks.

Only at the end of 2016 was the administration sufficiently shocked by the failure of its strategy to lift the prohibition on air support and end further withdrawals. But this left in place a greatly reduced U.S. and NATO force sufficient only to prevent immediate defeat. Since the Trump administration has largely maintained this inadequate force, it is puzzling that the White House wonders why it has not achieved a different result.

Our commanders may perhaps be faulted for not arguing harder against the political mistakes of Washington. I believe that they tried but found that the Obama White House resented every effort to speak truth to power. The Afghans can be seriously criticized for allowing politics to intrude much too far into senior military appointments (something that is being reversed by President Ashraf Ghanis appointment of battle-tested commanders). Nonetheless, our advisory presence still does not cover every Afghan army corps, nor their subordinate brigades. Much of the rush to failure has been Washington-driven.

Even a great effort to correct the mistakes of the past would not produce results on the battlefield for a year or more. Whether this can or should be done deserves serious debate. But that discussion should be based on a clear understanding of what has and what has not already been tried in Afghanistan.

Follow this link:
America keeps on failing in Afghanistan - Washington Post

That seems to be just what Sen. John McCain is now suggesting -- adding troops for counterterrorism, increasing US airpower and targeting the enemy, the Taliban and its allies al Qaeda and ISIS directly. And with the President's national security adviser en route to Bedminster to meet with Donald Trump, it's not a moment too soon. We've previously made a similar commitment. The shooting ended in Korea 64 years ago, though since no peace treaty was ever signed, we are still technically at war with North Korea and we still have more than 23,000 troops there.

We might even be fighting a hot war there again before long.

Today, the consequences could be even greater.

That led to a war that lasted nearly the entire decade of the 1980s, a quagmire that was often likened to Russia's Vietnam War. Thousands of young men returning in body bags and a national revulsion in Russia for the Kremlin's obsessions with Afghanistan were important contributors to the end of communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Still, let's assume Donald Trump is wise enough to follow the recommendations of his sainted generals and keep -- or even more importantly, enlarge -- America's troop presence there in limited combat, as well as advisory roles, just as we are doing now, to some effect, in Syria.

First, under no circumstances must we tip our hand, as President Obama did in Iraq and again in Afghanistan, and suggest that there's a firm deadline to our presence there.

Now, in Afghanistan, we have a new opportunity not to make the same mistake twice. We must let the bad guys think our presence is forever and that our resources know no bounds. Don't give the bad guys an open-and-shut reason to just wait you out. You need to say one thing and sound like you mean it. We'll stay until the end, no matter how bitter it might be and the bad guys are beaten (just like the US is doing now with ISIS) or until our side in the Afghan stew can really take up the fight and win it.

This time, the stakes could be even higher. Imagine a Taliban back in power in Kabul that decides just the perfect present for their new allies and friends from ISIS -- who helped them return to power -- might be a small nuke that North Korea is willing and may very soon be able, to put on the black market. Then we are talking an existential threat to the American heartland that will make 9/11 seem like a distant memory.

What you need to do is tell your generals, sooner rather than later, you want to stay in Afghanistan until victory is won. Then, define what that victory should look like and why it is so deeply important to the world's security.

At the same time, we can't ignore the civil society component. It's certainly not a pretty picture. According to last month's quarterly report to Congress of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), Afghanistan's domestic revenues declined some 25% over a year earlier and "covered about 40 percent of total government expenditures."

Moreover, the largest single product of the largest economic sector, agriculture, was the production of opioids, which according to SIGAR nearly doubled to $3.02 billion last year from $1.56 billion a year earlier. We must find a way to build a viable economy independent of the Taliban.

Gen. Mattis and Gen. McMaster are supposed to come pay their respects to Mr Trump in Bedminster, New Jersey, on his working vacation this week. While perhaps overshadowed by Korea, it's still a perfect time to lay all this out for him. The President must not waste any more time, or waffle any further over a decision.

Be decisive and make the right choice, as painful as it may appear. For the alternative may be far more painful. Not just in the long run, but far more immediately than might ever be imagined. Sometimes, hardball does work.

Visit link:
How Trump can win in Afghanistan - CNN International

McCain's Afghan strategy includes adding more US troops for counterterrorism missions, increasing US airpower to aid Afghan forces and providing the US military with broader authority to target enemy forces including the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

The Arizona Republican also would have the US military advising Afghan forces at the Kandak, or battalion level, which is about 600 troops.

"We must face facts: we are losing in Afghanistan and time is of the essence if we intend to turn the tide," McCain said in a statement. "We need an integrated civil-military approach to bolster U.S. counterterrorism efforts, strengthen the capability and capacity of the Afghan government and security forces, and intensify diplomatic efforts to facilitate a negotiated peace process in Afghanistan in cooperation with regional partners."

McCain wants the US to enter into an agreement with the Afghan government for an enduring US counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan, and he wants to put more pressure on Pakistan to stop providing sanctuaries to the Taliban and Haqqani Network.

The goal, he says, is to create security conditions in the country that would bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Defense Secretary James Mattis pledged he would give McCain an Afghan strategy by July, but there has been no public sign that such a strategy has materialized.

McCain outlined his plan as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, the bill he leads as chairman of the Senate armed services committee.

McCain's amendment is a "sense of Congress" provision, which means it would not force the Trump administration to take any action. But if it's adopted in the bill, it would provide a symbolic marker that Congress wants an enduring US counterterrorism presence in Afghanistan.

CNN's Ryan Browne contributed to this report.

Original post:
John McCain announces his own strategy for Afghanistan - CNN

The situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, and I have urged the Pentagon to consider new strategies. It's time to act creatively and aggressively so that all of America's sacrifices there since 9/11 will not have been in vain.

So, if what we've been doing isn't working, let's talk about some creative alternatives.

During the Obama administration, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan Gen. John Nicholson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff responded to creative suggestions and unconventional approaches with a refusal to even have a conversation. They even claimed it would be illegal to discuss them, which is total nonsense.

As Americans die year after year, the Pentagon has managed the war in Afghanistan bureaucratically, and it has not succeeded. Obama's Pentagon seemed to think failure was an option. It wasn't, and now we are finally having the conversation about new approaches. I urge the Trump Pentagon to take these new ideas seriously.

Erik Prince, of Blackwater fame, has an alternative strategy that will work. Prince first got involved in Afghanistan through his former company, but his experience goes way back. In 1998, through his financial support for the Inter-Afghan Dialogue Process, he tried to bring peace to the war-torn country.

Prince also played a largely unknown but critical role immediately after 9/11, when he put the CIA in direct contact with Americans who were highly trusted by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. General's Abdul Rashid Dostum's famous horseback charge, which broke the back of the Taliban, may never have happened if not for Prince's knowledge and activism in helping his country.

Blackwater's accomplishments in Afghanistan are legendary. Prince has credibility and a proven track record on Afghanistan and in other trouble spots.

President Trump inherited a total mess in Afghanistan. After 16 years, 2,300 lives lost, 22,000 maimed, and nearly a trillion dollars spent, America finds itself stuck in the longest war in our history with no end in sight for thousands of U.S. troops still engaged there. If changes aren't made soon, radical Islamic terrorism will be more threatening than after or before 9/11.

Of course, one option is to pull out quickly and completely, which would soon lead to a complete jihadi victory within a year or two. As the black Taliban flag is raised over the U.S. embassy, the ultimate recruiting call for every terrorist wannabe in the world would have been sounded.

Another approach is to do what most conventional generals want: Send tens of thousands more U.S. troops back to do more fighting with the requisite costs of American blood and treasure rising together, only to maintain the status quo.

Wisely, the president so far has rejected this all-or-nothing choice, because neither approach is in the interest of our country.

As the Pentagon has been cycling generals in and out of Afghanistan, it now has become evident that no one is really in charge and no one is really held responsible. We are losing the war, but the generals all get promoted, not fired. A return to the old system of having one person in charge of policy, rules of engagement, spending by all agencies and departments, including military operations and budgets, makes the most sense.

A common sense approach is to embed highly qualified trainers with Afghan military units for sustained periods. Few Americans realize that when our troops go to Afghanistan to train indigenous soldiers, they typically spend only about eight hours a week doing so. They never go into harm's way with them, instead staying safely holed up on U.S. bases most of the time.

This is incredibly expensive and inefficient. And the current approach does not ensure that Afghan troops get paid on time, are equipped properly, and are effectively supported on the battlefield with logistics, intelligence, ammunition, and air support. The new approach would accomplish this.

This isn't about privatizing this conflict so that someone like Prince can make money. His suggested plan would save taxpayers some $40 billion each year. Besides that, concerns about private-sector actors making money on conflict seem to overlook those companies already benefiting from the status quo.

This approach also enables the leadership for much needed changes: the recalibration of the Afghan political system to a more decentralized structure; destroying the poppy crop; recognizing the border with Pakistan; instituting proper governance, including national carbon and mining laws; enacting proper patent rights and intellectual property protections; even establishing a system of clear title to property.

The jihadists got out of the bottle in the wake of the U.S.-supported Mujahedeen victory over the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Another Islamist victory in Afghanistan now this time over the United States would guarantee that our children will be dealing with radical Islam the rest of their lives. Rather, we need to start to get the jihadists back in the bottle by breaking their will in Afghanistan.

As Prince put it, "This is a Wollman Ice Rink moment for the Trump Presidency. We owe the American people a method to deny terror sanctuaries while also not spending outrageous of blood and treasure for years to come. The moderate approach provides a dignified offramp to the longest war in our history."

He may be right.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher represents California's 48th congressional district and chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats.

Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.

Read the original:
Dana Rohrabacher: We need a new Afghanistan strategy - Washington Examiner

I took over a mess, President Donald Trump said Thursday, and were going to make it a lot less messy. | Evan Vucci/AP

President Donald Trump said Thursday hes very close to deciding whether he will approve a plan for more troops in Afghanistan.

Were getting close. Were getting very close, Trump told reporters at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to a pool report. Its a very big decision for me.

Story Continued Below

POLITICO reported earlier Thursday that U.S. and Afghan military commanders have run into an unexpected roadblock, as Trumps indecision has lingered for months.

Military leaders were caught off guard when the commander in chief questioned whether the 16-year effort to stabilize Afghanistan is still worth it, rather than immediately approving their plan to increase troop levels.

I took over a mess, Trump said Thursday, and were going to make it a lot less messy.

The president is also mulling replacing the top U.S. commander in the region or allowing private contractors to take over the everyday task of advising the fading Afghan security forces, according to media reports.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

More here:
Trump: We're 'very close' to a decision on Afghanistan troops - Politico