Return to PS FAQs

After Iraq, will the U.S. focus on Afghanistan?
Also see "Is Iran Next?"
Also see Pakistan under the "Next" FAQ.

Afghanistan continued to be in the news only rarely during 2003 and 2004. In contrast, Iraq was in the headlines nearly every day.  Usually Afghanistan is in the news when a few Americans are killed, bin Laden is making the press, or President Bush links the war on terror with Iraq and Afghanistan. However, a front-page New York Times story appeared on August 22, 2005, titled, "GI Death Toll in Afghanistan Worst Since '01."  65 Americas had been killed already this year. 

In the spring and summer of 2005 as the winter snows melted in Afghanistan, violence and attacks on Americans increased. The President's late June prime time speech again linked the two wars with 9/11.  A helicopter probably shot down over Afghanistan was the deadliest since the invasion of October 2001.  The Taliban government of Afghanistan had been sheltered bin Laden before 9/11. The USA Today reminds readers than "before the crash, 189 American service members had died in or around Afghanistan" according to the Pentagon.  It is unlikely that the  Pentagon does not included special forces or CIA forces. 

In 2006, Afghanistan was in the news much less than was Iraq, mostly due to fewer US troops and fewer Americans being killed.  However, suicide bombing tactics of Iraq had spread to Afghanistan, and in the 12 months ending February 2006, 30 suicide bombings occurred. 

Nor was the news from Afghanistan good into the fall of 2006. Deaths and attacks were up. Senator Frist, upon a visit, said that the US could not beat the Taliban militarily, but would need to include them in the political process. "Losing the Good War" was the Times leader editorial of Dec. 5. "Mr. Bush's decision to rush off to invade Iraq meant that Afghanistan would be shortchanged when it came to resources and to policy makers' priority lists. The cost of that inattention can be seen in the failing Afghan police force. It can also be seen in the Taliban's growing strength, the mounting death toll of Afghan civilians and NATO troops, and the unraveling of the Karzai government. So much for winning the good war."

Afghanistan in 2007 included increasing violence and a widespread prediction of a resurgent Taliban staging a "spring offensive." When VP Cheney visited in late February, there was an assassination attempt on him. He was not injured, as the suicide bomber was a mile from Cheney, but he left Bagram air base about 90 minutes later. In the attacks, 23 people were killed, including two Americans.

Return to Top

In March, a US convoy was attacked by a car bomb. In response, US forces opened fire on civilians, killing about 19 and wounding 50. The numbers were revised by US officials to 8 killed and 25 wounded, but later revised back up in press reports. One Americans was injured. As is often the case, accounts differed. The US said they were being fired on, whereas at least nine Afghan witnesses claimed the Americans were randomly firing at cars driving by and at pedestrians. Said one, "They opened fire on everybody, the ones inside the vehicles and the ones on foot." Demonstrations followed, with allegations that the US was restricting the press from printing certain images. Last May there were demonstrations and riots after a similar incident.

Just the next day two 2000 pound US bombs killed nine members of a family, including five women and three children. Human Rights Watch reaction was that the "heavy firepower" was too much "to respond to two men, even if they have Kalishnikovs."

The day after the US apologized and made payment compensations for the latest attacks, came the next series of attacks. More civilians were killed in a US bombing. . Perhaps 21 civilians were killed in this mid-May attack. President Karzai was losing patience with the Americans.

Also in mid-May came the news of a leading Taliban commander killed by US troops, Mullah Muhammad Omar. His dead body was a large photo on the front page of the May 14 New York Times. He was an alleged leading beheader.

The largest Kabul bombing was in June of 2007, with 24 killed at a police academy for teachers.

US bombs also upset British. The front page Times of early August reported that a senior British commander had asked US forces to leave an area because of the high level of civilian deaths. The leader found it difficult to win over local people. A US military spokesman denied the story. Later in August two US F-15 killed three British troops and seriously wounded two others with a 500 pound bomb.

A few days later the lead and lengthy story of the Times was "How the 'Good War' in Afghanistan Went Bad." Terrorist attacks in and near Kabul by the Pakistan border more than tripled from 2002 to 2006. Powell had disagreed with Rumsfeld that a large international force was not needed. Even with a Marshall Plan cited by Bush in 2002 of aid, Afghanistan received less aid per capita than Bosnia, Kosovo, or Haiti. There are not enough agricultural experts, CIA officers were too inexperienced, more NATO troops are dying, and the consequences of failure are least as serious as in Iraq.

In his visit to the US in August, Karzai said, "The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two year has definitely deteriorated."

Afghanistan became the lead editorial of the Times on August 20. "The Good War, Still to Be Won" wonders about civilians deaths and about how different the situation might have been if the Bush administration "had not diverted needed troops and dollars into the misguided invasion of Iraq, nor wasted years discouraging needed NATO military assistance, nor pulled its punches rather than pressuring a Pakistani dictator with, at best, mixed feelings toward the Taliban...The battle against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies is still winnable, and it is vital to American security." US strategy does not help "win the hearts and minds" of Afghanis "every time an errant American air strike kills innocent civilians." The US has never had enough troops and has received less development assistance per capita than Bosnia, Kosovo or Haiti.

How many Americans are dying in Afghanistan?The news in May 2005 was not good, as battles led to increase deaths on all sides. For the first time in over 6 months, 10 or more Americans were killed during the month of May.  2005 saw the greatest number of American deaths, 10 or more during 3 different months. As of the end of May 2006, nearly 300 Americans have been killed in Afghanistan.2007 is the most violent and deadly year of the war, which began in October of 2001. Over 100 Americans will die this year (101 as of mid-November), compared with 87 in 2006 and 93 in 2005. Those who feel that President Karzai has little power outside of the capital call him "The Mayor of Kabul."

"The Other War" is described in a lead Tribune editorials of late Decembe, 2007. "For many Americans, the war in Afghanistan was over a long time ago. There were a few weeks of intense fighting, those days cutter bombs obliterated cave hide-outs and then, with astonishing swiftness, the Taliban collapsed. The country elected a president and appeared on its way toward becoming a stable democracy. Many Americans turned their attention to Iraq and never turned back." The outcome in Afghanistan, the paper feels, is "critical."

The number of Afghans killed in 2007 was double. It may be hard to recall that as recently as 2004 there were no suicide bombings in Afghanistan. As we enter 2008, suicide bombing is common.

Afghanistan in 2008:
The war received more coverage and included stories about prisons behind capacity. The front page Times report shows that the US detention center in Bagram base was supposed to be replaced, but building near Kabul has been slowed. The Red Cross has quietly complained the "ghost detainees" held incommunicado for even months, are behind held, unregistered. The US tries to register all detainees within two weeks. The Red Cross alleges that some detainees are kept from its inspectors and subject to cruel treatment in violation of the Geneva Conventions. While the US has about 300 prisoners at Guantanamo, there are twice that at Bagram. The Pentagon has pressured the Afghan government to adopt the enemy combatant legal framework, but the Afghans have resisted.

Return to Top

Secretary of Defense Gates spoke bluntly of the importance of Afghanistan in February 2008. He warned Europeans that their safety was at risk from Islamic extremist terrorist, if the county was not stabilized. Yet, Gates added, "I am not indulging in scare tactics. Not am I exaggerating..."

Reaction to Gates came from the lead Times editorial. "Nearly everything about President Bush's botched war of choice in Iraq has made it much harder to win AFghanistan's war of necessity...Mr. Gates might get further if he also acknowledged that even before NATO got involved, Washington never had enough troops in Afghanistan or a coherent strategy for stabilizing the country."

In February a suicide bomber, ever more frequent, killed 80 people and wounded 90. The attack in Kandahar Province was the country's worst single bombing since 2001.

More US troops were planned for Afghanistan, a steady but continueing trend since the US attacked in October 2001. We began with under 5000 troops, went over 10,000 in 2002, 20,000 in 2004 and 30,000 in 2008.

Karzai became more vocal and adversarial about criticizing civilians being killed in US air attacks. An August 22 attacked killed at least 33, even according to Pentagon estimates. The UN estimated 90. Another instance was in early November when Afghanis put the death toll at 40 civilians from a US bombing of a wedding party. The US reaction, predictably, was "an investigation." An angry Karzai said, "The fight against terrorism cannot be won by bombardment of our villages. My first demand from the US president [Obama had just been elected]...would be to end civilian casualties in Afghanistan and take the war to places where there are terrorist nests and training centers.

Karzai also demanded timetables for the seven year war to end. "I wish I could intercept the [US] planes that are going to bomb Afghan villages, but that's not in my hands." He is also upset about the detention of hundreds of suspects for years without trial at Bagram AFB and at Guantanamo Bay. Karai's demands were echoed in early December by the top UN mission chief in Afghanistan. He warned that unless military operations were more cautious and killed fewer civilians "they risked jeopardizing their efforts to stabilize and rebuild." Interestingly, past and future Defense chief Gates echoed these words in a visit to the country. Both Mr. Eide of the UN and Gates seem to agree the focus also needs to be on accelerating reconstruction.

How many Afghanis are dying? The UN estimated in October that there were about 1500 casualties in 2008 through September, a 40% increase over all of 2007. International troops are responsible for 577 of the deaths, 2/3 by air strikes A Times op-ed (10/5/08) expresses that Afghans are naturally suspicious of foreign forces because "we have suffered through two occupation in the last three decades, first by the former Soviet Union in the 1980s and then by Pakistan--indirectly through the Taliban--in the 1990s." Pakistan was one of the Taliban's last allies just after 9/11. By the end of 2008 the official total was 4000 Afghans killed that year in the war, with aboutg 1500 of them being civilians.

For 2008, civilian deaths rose 40%, to over 2100, the highest of the war. Most pro-Afghan government forces were killed by airstrikes.

In mid-December the US admitted the seven Afghans were killed in error. They were looking for a suspected Taliban commander during the "tragic case of mistaken identity" 13 Afghan police were also wounded. The US usually investigates there reports for days or weeks before making such a statement of admission.

How will President-elect Obama deal with Afghanistan? Michael Gordon, Times military reporter, penned a front page article on December 2. He feels that Afghanistan presents "a unique set of problems." The six problems are "a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain." In the past few months, there have been more insurgent attacks in Afghanistan than Iraq. Half of the attacks are against US and other foreign forces. One of Rice's former top adviser adds, "Afghanistan may be the 'good war'; but it is also the harder war."

If US troops increase in Afghanistan, they will be supported by the second largest, British, at 7800. Plans in December were to add 20,000 US troops in 2009. Sec. of Defense Gates added, "I am more mindful than most that with 120,000 troops the Soviets still lost, because they never had the support of the Afghan people."

Should or will the US talk with the Taliban? Actually, the US is probably already doing so, in November 2008. The country's "swift unraveling" has created new and perhaps unrealistic calls for talks. The lead Times editorial is skeptical about cutting deals with Taliban leaders who sheltered al Qaeda before 9/11. They would "undoubtedly insist on re-imposing their repressive, medieval ways, including denying education and medical care to women." However, Afghanistan is in trouble with "a breakdown in central authority, rampant corruption, a booming heroin trade and increasingly sophisticated attacks by militants on both sides of the Pakistan border." Bush and Karzai are both culpable; Bush for ignoring the problems and starting a war with Iraq.

Another new strategy, floated in late December, was for the US to recruit local militias, taking a page from the Iraq strategy. Concerns include more people who have more weapons, thus leading to more violence. Afghans are uneasy about the plans.

General Petraeus wants a "major push" in Afghanistan. The General, who has moved from Iraq east to Afghanistan, feels the country needs a "sustained, substantial" commitment from the US and others to stop, according to the Times, "a downward spiral of violence and a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

"The Afghan Quagmire" was columnist Bob Herbert take on the challenges ahead for Obama. He is worried that the US military is worn out from multiple deployments in two wars. Herbert wonders what their mission will be, though perhaps he just needed to get more details out of Petraeus (see above). Obama must spell out his mission goals and lay out an exit straetgy. "He will owe that to the public because he will own the conflict at that point. It will be Barack Obama's war."

Another US raid brought controversy, as US claims were disputed by Afghans from their hospital beds. The US claimed that 32 people were killed, all Taliban insurgents. Afghans claim that the January 7 raid killed 13 civilians and wounded nine. Anger deepens and Afghans are increasingly less likely to help US forces. Angry villagers protested, who feel they have no redress for their grievances. A local officials admitted that some of the villagers were armed, because there is no police force in rural areas. Mr. Mashal, the official, concluded that "unless the international community, and especially military forces, coordinate with us, we are not going to win this war, because to win the war is to win the heats and minds of the pope, and then you can beat the enemy." For the year of 2008, about 4000 Afghan civilians were killed by various means.

The US revised its initial claims of innocence the concede the recent Afghan attacks killed mostly civilians. 13 civilians were killed, including three children and six women, not "up to 15 militants" in a "precision strike." Those who pay attention see a pattern of initial denial and later admissions. The UN estimates that civilian deaths rose 40% in 2009 to 2100, 828 of which are attributed to US, NATO and Afghan forces, mostly from air strikes and village raids. With more US troops coming, these numbers will probably rise. 13 Americans died in the first 7 weeks of 2009 in Afghanistan.

"Afghan Leader Finds Himself Hero No More" is the subject of a front page Times report in early February. Karzai is less popular in Afghanistan and in the US. Corruption is rampant. The next elections have been delayed until August 20, and Karzai is seeking another term. The delay appears unconstitutional because Karzai's term expires on May 22. In a survey 85% intended to vote for someone else. Three less known candidates had declared by late January.

We learned in the first few weeks of the Obama presidency that Afghan leaders would come to the US to discuss US options for their country. A few days later Obama announced his plan to add 17,000 US troops to Afghanistan by the spring. The 36,000 current forces will thus be increased by 50%. Obama admists that only military means will not solve the problems. Though rarther vague on the mission, Obama believes that one goal is the "stablize" the country. Pakistan provides sanctuary for Taliban and al Qaeda from Afghanistan. Opponents of the escalation or surge worry about "the slippery slope."

What will the British do? Will they support a troop increase? The war increasingly unpopular among its citizens, mostly due to the 84 Brits who have died this year, and more than all Europeans countries combined. However, if conditions are met, the British announced in October that they could send 500 more troops. With 41 countries providing troops, the British would reach nearly 10,000. Other allies would need to step up and corruption would need to be curbed. Is PM Gordon Brown floating a trial balloon for Obama? Brown feels that 3/4 of all terrorist plots uncovered in Britain in recent years "had links to Islamic extremist in Pakistan and Afghanistan. "We are protecting the streets of Britain." Sec. of State Clinton added that day, "Our goal is to disrupt, dismantle, defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies. But not every Taliban is an extremist ally." Conservative MP's in Britain expressed doubt toward Brown: "Anybody who believes that an Afghan army composed of different ethnic groups is going to defeat the Taliban is living in a political cloud-cockoo-land."

Dexter Filkins filled over 500 notebooks on Iraq and Afghanistan as a reporter for the New York Times. Filkins book of late 2008 is Forever War. He was interviewed by Terri Gross on Fresh Air in February 2009. NPR has archived about 36 minutes where, in Afghanistan, he sees "no end in sight." Internet cafe are common in parts of Afghanistan, but the Taliban are strong in other parts. Filkins interviewed a Taliban commander recently, where journalists are not welcome. One leader who checks out possible suicide bombers, seemed proud that he would not accept any suicide bombers under the age of 15. Filkins also spoke about the Sunni Awakening, when Sunnis changed sides, as "the most important factor" in reducing violence. "You can't kill and capture your way out" of an insurgency, Filkins quotes Gen. Petreaus. The journalist worries that it will be a lot harder in Afghanistan. Later, he describes the corruption there as the worst of nay country he has ever been to.

Filkins was again interviewed on Fresh Air in early June 2009 with the release of the paperback version of Forever War.

Talking to the Taliban came up again in spring of 2009. Obama, claiming that the US was not winning the war in Afghanistan, floated the idea of reaching out to moderate Taliban, much as the strategy in Iraq. Intermediaries were talked to.

One sadly not atypical day was April 1, when 5 suicide bombers killed 13 in Kandahar, attacking a government office. We saw similar atacks in neighboring Pakistan in the spring.

The lead story in the Times of late May told us that some weapons being sent to Afghanistan ended up in the hands of the Taliban. This was due to poor discipline and outright corruption and included thousands of rifles. Some of these weapons were used to kill 9 Americans last year.

US bombing of civilians came back into the news as Karzai was visiting with President Obama. Polls showed that the long-time Afhgan leader was becoming less popular (only 1/3 support him) but still had the best chance of all the candidates to win the August 20 election. He would need 50% to avoid a runoff, as with the Iran election of June. Is Afghanistan moving in the right direction? Five years ago nearly 80% believed so, but now that is down to 30%.

In early May perhaps dozens of Afghan civilians, including women and children, were killed. Hilary Clinton expressed regret and sorrow for any civilians killed inadvertently. The Afghan government put the number at 30 civilians killed in bombing raids. Villagers put the total at 70-100. This could become known as the most deadly attack by Americans since August 2008. Could the Taliban have been partially responsible by hiding in house of civilians? Villagers claimed that the civilians were placed far away from the fighting.

A US report release in early June clearly concluded and admitted to "errors" by the US in this May 4 and other air strikes. On May 4, US troops were present and under a threat. Had the rules been followed, some of the attacks would have been aborted. The front page Times story feels this will give "new ammunition" to critics of US policy and could jeopardize the mission by "turning the civilian population against American forces and their ally, the Afghan government." The Afghan government concludes that 140 civilians were killed on May, while the US concludes only 20-30. The US investigation sees Taliban hiding in civilian areas.

In his June 5 Cairo speech, Obama reiterated that "We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there."

Sec of Defense Gates was optimism in May, but noted that improvement were needed in the next year for the US public to continue its support. One way to imporve, Gates stressed in mid-June, was to reduce civilian deaths. The Secretary said, "Every civilian casualty, however caused, is a defeat for us and a setback for the Afghan government."

The new US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen Stanley A. McChrystal, vowed to reduce these killings because it is "essential to our credibility." The new commander feels that progress will be measured by "the number of Afghans shielded from violence," not the number of enemies killed. Rules that were broken in these and other attacks include assuring that there is "an imminent threat." The Lt. Gen added, "Air power contains the seeds of our own destruction if we do not use it responsibly." The policy officially changed in late June, restricting air power only if US or coalition troops could be overrun.

How should success be measured in Afghanistan? This was the subject of the June 8 lead editorial from the New York Times. They quote his "shielded from violence" ideas, above. If this goal is achieved, McChrystal will have "a far better chance of turning around a war America has not been winning--but must. It isn't just Taliban violence that Afghans need shielding from. Errant American fire has taken an unacceptably high toll." With 2000 Afghan civilians killed last year, reducing this toll would require "tighter and more strictly enforced rules of engagement That applies not just to air strikes but to the search and detention operations." With 21,000 more troops that Obama is sending, they can repeat errors from Iraq, sweeping up innocent civilians and turning the local people against US forces. "Counterinsurgency operations need support (and intelligence tips) from the local population to succeed." The paper concludes, "The rights words are being said in Washington. Now they must be applied in Afghanistan."

One Presidential candidate vowed to fight corruption. Ramazan Bashardost lived in France for 20 years, earning a PhD in Political Science and is among the more popular of the 42 candidates still in the race in late June. He dubs Karzai as "orphans of Bush" and "the Taliban with neckties." The urban protest vote will likely go his way. He publicly rejects the huge perks from other ministers. While Karzai is a Pashtun, Bashordost in Hazara, part of the third largest minority, about 15% of the population.

"Afghanistan's Failing Forces" was the Times June 23 lead editorial with more "grim" news. The level of attacks is the highest ever and the paper is supportive of Obama's decision to send more troops (68,000 by the end of the year), which could allow past mistakes to be corrected. The costs are high, $60 billion/year. "There can be no lasting security--and no exit for American forces--until Afghanistan has a functioning army and national police." However, under Bush's Pentagon, wages were too low to compete with the Taliban and drug lords. Weapons were not kept track of. By mid-August US troops were up to nearly 60,000.

Are US Marines popular? In some villages over the summer, villagers have taken up arms against foreign troops to protect their homes or in anger at losing family to US airstrikes. What are the other factors? Is this because of fear of the Taliban, allegiance to the Taliban, hatred of US occupation, or money?

One challenge for the US and Afghanistan remains poppy fields, which create huge profits as they make their way toward herion markets. The new US policy in June was to shift away from eradication of opium and toward interdiction and supporting alternative crops. Can Afghans make as much money with poppies? How much profit do the Taliban make from these fields?

On July 2 a new US offensive began in strong Taliban regions. In Hemland province the Afghan government has no presence in 5 of the 13 districts.

Karzai's corrupt brother is working for the CIA, and has been for 8 years, we learned in October. The Times large lead article examines how this may effect US policy. The Prime Minsiter has "long been portrayed by the Taliban as an American puppet. His brother is likely heavily involved in the drug trade. Heroin now kills more people in NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan in a year about 10,000), than have been killed on the battlefield since 2001.

In July 2009,, VP Biden told the British in a BBC interview that the Afghan War is "worthwhile." The Brits have the second most troops there, 9000. More British have lost their lives in Afghanistan than in Iraq. In August, Obama spoke of the war on "necessity" because "Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so agina. If left uncehcked, the Taliban insurgency will eman an even large safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."

How long might the US be in Afghanistan? Some in the military began floating the idea of 10 years longer.

For most of 2009, more Americans were killed in Afghanistan than Iraq. The total US killed by August 2009, was 771. July was the deadleist month of the war for Americans, with over 30 killed. The war has lasted over 8 years. By way of comparison, the total US toll in Iraq stood at over 4300.

British deaths came over 200 in mid-August. Helmund province in the south was especially violent. Prime Minister Brown feels that "stabilizing Afghanistan" is critical "to make Britain safe." from Taliban attacks.

Where is Mullah Omar? He was the most infamous Afghan in the fall of 2001. As the Taliban were swept from power in October 2001, a front page Times articles recalls that "Afghans cheered the return of girls' education, music and ordinary pleasures outlawed by the grim fundamentalist government." However, now 8 years after the start of the war, the semi-literate, one-eyed Omar leads an insurgency which is still gaining ground despite superior forces against him. "Far from a historical footnote, he represents a vexing security challenge for the Obama administration, one that has consumed the president's advisers, divided Democrats and left many Americans frustrated..He has staged one of the most remarkable military comebacks in modern history. Omar lost his eye fighting against the Soviets in the 1980s. He operates secretly as only four or five people can pass him messages.$10 million is the reward for this Taliban leader. Having learned the lesson of 2001, Omar realizes that if the Taliban regain power "they don't want Al Qaeda hanging around."

During the week of the Presidential elections of Thursday, August 20, the Taliban expanded their threats to voters, in hopes to derail the election. The Taliban threatened to cut off the finger of any voting found with the purple stain, as evidence of voting. Though Kabul was infrequently attacked, a bomb just outside NATO headquarter in killed seven. The bombing was one block from the US embassy. Suicide bombings here and elsewhere increased the weeks before the election.

Return to Top

Polls have long predicted that Karzai will not gain the 50% needed to prevent a run-off among the 34 candidates. Karzai is seen as "deeply unpopular" with a record of mismangement, but yet most likely to win.

Elections of August 20 were violent (about 30 killed) and had a low turnout, especially in the south were the Taliban are strongest. (The word "Talib" means religious student). Turnout in 2004 was 70%. Details were not readily available but Karzai and his lead opponent both claimed victory. Final results would take at least two weeks, as in some areas, donkeys carried ballot boxes to locations to be counted. Were the elections a success? Opinions varied. Obama felt the election would demonstrate eight years after the US invasion the county was stable encough to justify the increased US committment. Likely, he hoped there would not be a runoff. The US public is slowly become skeptical. The worst case scenario would be a north-south civil war, with the Pushtuns of the south and east vs. the other minority groups, including the Uzbeks of the north. In 2004, Karzai received over 80% of the vote in 5 provinces of the south and southeast, including Kandahar

The opposition to Karzai was led by Abdullah Abdullah. Abdullah is a former foreign minister and eye doctor running for the main oppsotiion movement, the United Front. The former finance minister, Ghani, is also a leading candidate. Ghani has called for a cease-fire as a first step. There were complaints of fraud, ballot stuffing, and men voting "for" their wives.

Another election reaction was the lead editorial of the respected New York Times. On the positive side, millions of Afghans were determined to "shape their own future" defying Taliban threats in the second-ever presidential election. Obama is right, the paper feels, that success is essential to the US's struggle with al Qaeda. But there is "a lot more to be done." Military success "will not be enough unless Pakistan closes down Taliban training camps and infiltration routes on its side of the border...The Taliban cannot be defeated militarily unless they are also defeated politically." Karzai's corruption must be dealt with because "he has built alliances with notorious warlords. Opium cultivation and drug trafficking have expanded under the protection of his relatives and allies." The Times concludes, "Afghan misgovernment is the Taliban's most important ally and most effective recruiting agent. The price of continues misgovernment will be paid with the lives of Afghans and of American and NATO soldiers."

The next day Richard Haas, foreign policy expert, penned "In Afghanistan, The Choice is Ours" in the Times. A veteran of two Bush administrations and author of War of Necessity [Persian Gulf], War of Choice [Iraq], he opens by quoting Obama: "We must never forget, this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." Certainly complemented that the Commander in Chief would give such publicity to his book, Haas concludes that Afghanistan, at least the way it is being fought, has actually now become a war of choice. Wars of necessity, the current president of the Council on Foreign Affairs reminds us, must be "vital" to national security and lack "viable alternatives to the use of military force to protect those interests." World War II, the Korean War, and the Persian Gulf War thus fit Haas' definition of necessity. After 9/11, so was Afghanistan, as the US acted "in self defense to oust the Taliban. There was no viable alternative. Now, however, with a friendly government in Kabul, is our military presence still a necessity?" We make it harder for al Qaeda to mount operations. A radical alternative could be to withdraw all US troops but stay involved in Afghanistan with drones and training and infrastructure work. Afghanistan has become Obama's war of choice, like Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo and today's Iraq. The choices are not easy. Ending our military efforts mean that the government might fall. "The risk of the current approach is that it might produce the same result in the end, but at a higher human, military and economic cost." One reason we stayed in Vietnam, Haas might have pointed out, is that some argued that our "credibility" was at risk. "Doing more in Afghanistan lessens our ability to act elsewhere, including North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. There needs to be a limit to what the US does in Afghanistan and how long it is prepared to do it, lest we find ourselves unable to contend with other wars, of choice or of necessity, if and when they arise."

Was there much intimidation and fraud? Accounts continued coming in during the week after the election. Reports were generally anecdotal but widespread. Election workers were not impartial and some voters were allowed to vote for others. The turnout of women was especially low. Women and men voted at segregated station to avoid public mingling. Male voted "proxy" for women. One witness reported that ballot boxes were already full when he arrives at the polls at 6am, before they had officially been opened for voting. His complaints results in his being taken away forcefully. Now this man is hiding and receiving threats.

Will Afghanistan have a run-off election? It probably cannot be organized before the snows start falling in the north. Karzai claimed to win 54%, but probably did not win 50% of the vote, as about 1/3 of votes for him are suspect. Could they have a partial recount? Will the US have a credible leader to deal with to help fight corruption and the Taliban?

The front page Times story from mid-October expresses doubts among average Afghans that any runoff election would be fair. "Why bother?" ask some. "It's a waste of time and money."

By October, Hillary Clinton was hinting that Karzai was about to agree to either a run off or talks which could lead to a coalition government. It appeared unlikely that a run-off could be organized before the mountain snows made transportation too difficult. Would a run-off allow Obama to have more confidence in his troops decision?

Peter Galbraith was fired from his UN position in late September. The top US diplomat felt the UN was not speaking out against the election fraud. Galbaither was the #2 UN official in Afghanistan. Specifically, he accused the head of the mission of "concealing election fraud" to benefit Karzai. The staff was even told not to talk about the fraud. After a week or two of Galbraith's public criticisms, his boss, Kai Eide of Norway, admitted to "widespread fraud." Eide saw no coverup. Karzai has grown "increasingly isolated" from his foreign backers, the Times reported on Oct. 12.

On the 8th anniversary of the war, Afghanistan had become the third longest war in US history. Iraq was 16 months behind. As of early October the longest US wars have been, in number of months:
1. Vietnam 102
2. American Revolution 100
3. Afghanistan War 96
4. Iraq War 80
5. US Civil War 48
6. World War II 45
7. Korean War 37
8. War of 1812 21

At this rate, Afghanistan will become the longest war in six months, April of 2010

Back in September 2009 there was growing doubt in Congress and op-ed pages of the desire to send more troops to Afghanistan. Does the US need a larger force? If so, for what purpose? We will have 68.000 troops there by the end of 2009. Critics on both the left and right are hesitant. Some argue that al Qaeda could be held at bay with strong intelligence, pilotless drones, cruise missiles, and raids by Special Forces. EJ Dionne and David Brooks, on All Things Considered on 9/4/09, spoke of the buildup, relatively weak comparisons to Vietnam, the role of the Taliban, and progress. Brooks focused on the "left-right opposition" and feels Obama needs to explain why we are there and how we are making progress, in contrast to Iraq.

Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat, does not want more troops until more Afghans are trained. One wonders if Afghan troops will change sides, since they are known to be opportunistic.

Gen. McChrystal's 66 page report, released here by the Washington Post in late September, after being leaked the veteran columnist Bob Woodward (of Watergate fame) warned that without more troops the war could be lost. He asked for up to 40,000 more troops. Without more troops, the General predicted without this influx the "likely result [will be] failure" in the next 12-18 months. He wants a full fledged counterinsurgency that rests on winning over the people more than killing militants. Subsequently, in October, McChrystal in interviewed in detail on 60 Minutes.

Return to Top

Other officers disagree with McCrystal, as does VP Biden. What does Sec. of Defense Gates believe? What about Sec. of State Clinton? The media finally took health care off the front pages for the first time in weeks. One officer said, "We haven't been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years, we've been fighting...for one year, eight times in a row." What are the pros and cons of sending more US troops? When will Obama decide on the course of the war? Can Obama say no to McCrystal, after he has called it "a war of necessity"? What does the US public desire?

A new poll released the same week showed that 29% of Americans want more troops while 32% want fewer. 32% of Americans are OK with large troops there for up to a year, while 26% are willing to have troops "as long as it takes." As a result of the Afghan war, are Americans safer from terrorism? 27% think the threat has decreased while 17% feel it has increased. If the US withdrew, the threat of terrorism against the US would increase, believe 43%. Do most Americans think Al Qaeda would gain shelter in a Taliban-led Afghanistan, or in parts of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban? What about Pakistan's role?

Normally conservative George Will writes regularly in the Washington Post. In early September his op-ed was, "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan." A Dutch commander in southern Afghanistan compares walking through the region to be "like walking through the Old Testament." Americans are increasingly impatient about our strategy of protecting the population with more and more troops. "The US strategy is "'clear, hold, and build.' Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return...Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how, and even if Afghanistan were not the second-wrist place to try: The Brooking Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state." Will worries that "development depends on security" and "security depends on development." How can we create an effective central government? "Afghanistan has never had one." Before Obama launches "New Deal 2.0 in Afghanistan," adminstration should ask itself: "If US forces are there to prevent reestablishment of al-Qaeda bases--evidently there are none now--must there be nation-building invasions of Somalia, Yemen and other sovereignty vacuums?" With fewer troops, the US should work from offshore, using "intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation the actually matters."

Also see a YouTube clip from ABC's This Week as Will, always well spoken, defends himself against Neocons and others(6 minutes). 40,000 troops would not be enough, Will argued. A roundtable discusses the issue with interesting details. There is an broad mix of liberals and conservatives who agree with Will. As our country seems so polarized, this debate is unique in that it does not pit 100% of Republicans vs. 100% of Democrats.

Are Will's views a "Cronkite moment" in Vietnam parlance? Even with our age of "political and audience fragmentation and polarizatiion," Tom Engelhardt thinks so.

Then, in October, Will's Newsweek commentary wondered, "Is It 1966 in Washington?" Back when Obama was only four in 1966, Will recalls a "rancorous national argument about the deepening US involvement in Vietnam had reached a rolling boil." Johnson wanted to expand health care to Medicare but feared it could be derailed by Vietnam and fracture his party. He invited veteran diplomat George Kennan to testify. Said the esteemed diplomat, "There is more to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or unpromising objectves...Our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determination the political realities in any other country, and particularly not in one remote from our shores, from our culture and from the experience of our people. This is not only not our business, but I don't think we can do it successfully." Kennan might have been right, concludes Will. About 55,000 and the 58,000 US deaths had not yet occurred.

Bob Herbert sees "Reliving the Past" in his early September Times op-ed. "The President should listen to Joe Biden" because "watching the American excallation...is like watching helplessly as someone you love climbs into a car while intoxicated and drives off toward a busy highway. No good can come of it." Obama already order 21,000 new troops, which would bring us near 70,000." Just as Iraq has been compared to Vietnam, so Herbert sees parallels in Afghanistan. LBJ adviser McGeorge Bundy worried about escalation in Vietnam. He was bothered that "no matter what we do to them, they live there and we don't, and they know that someday we'll go away and thus they know they can outlast us." Herbert also doesn't think we have the resources to expand the war now.

A few weeks later, Herbert writes of "The Hard and Bitter Truth", quoting from a Post/ABC poll that only 26% of Americans favored sending more troops. "We're sending them off to fight and possibly die in support of a government that is incompetent and riddled with corruption and narcotics traffickers."

In late September, columnist David Brooks adding his voice to the debate. He feels that the realistic policy choices include "all out or all in, surrender the place to the Taliban or do armed nation-building." We need to keep fighting, as we have since 1979, against "Islamic extremism...It's in our long-term interests to push back" mostly to make Pakistan more stable. "A Taliban reconquest would also...be a moral atrocity from which American self-respect would not soon recover." While Afghanistan has the reputation of being the "graveyard of empires" (British and Soviets), NATO has a few things going for it. They are good at counterinsurgency, the enemy is "wildly hated", with only 6% of Afghans desiring a Taliban return. "This is not Vietnam or even Iraq." In concluding, Brooks quotes from Obama during the summer, "'This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity....This is fundamental to the defense of our people.'"

The activist American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) suggests specific ways to reduce our troops there. They even have a sample letter to President Obama, for those who agree with their views.

The Germans called in a bombing which killed civilians in early September. As criticism mounted, the Germans defended themselves. Some people were burned beyond recognition. At first German officials claimed that no civilians were killed. It was not clear how they could have known this. A national watchdog group estimated that 60-70 villagers were killed. The targets were hijacked fuel trucks that could have been used to attack NATO forces. New US rules seemed not to be implemented. If civilians may be in danger, forces are supposed to move in by ground.

In addition to Germany, NATO ally Italy was in the news in September. After a deadly blast killed six of their soldiers, the leadership pondered a pullout of its 3000 troops in Afghanistan. Could Italian actions have led the accessive deaths of French forces? Groups in Afghanistan are well known for switching sides and taking bribes. After French forces were ambushed, they accused the Italians of having paid off the Taliban forces not to attack the Italians. Evidently, the French did not know to keep the bribes coming. The 10 French killed was the single worst loss to NATO in years.

From the Brookings Institute, Michael O'Hanlon and other publish a detailed chart in the Times op-ed pages every few months. In October they compared over 20 pieces of data/statistics from August of 2009, 2007, and 2005. For the first time I recall, Afghanistan is included in this "States of Conflict" update. Their summary: "The Taliban and other armed groups are now active" in about 1/3 of the districts 140/368) , "whereas they had been present in at most a couple of dozen a few years ago. While deaths among NATO and Afghan forces have increased, civilian fatalities, fortunately, have not--at least relative to 2008...To use the lexicon of American counterinsurgents, while there has been some clearing and some holding, there has been little yet in the way of building up viable state structures in the NOrth-West Frontier province" and other areas.

Corruption in Kabul continues. The US contractor Armor Group, was to protect the embassy. But documents released in mid-September created a front page story. There was serious understaffing, petty corruption, and abusive work conditions which threatened the security of the compound. The State Department has long known about the complaints there. This corruption story returned in mid-December with commentary from Gail Collins, "Going Naked in Kabul." The naked and "wild hazing rituals" were shown in pictures which should not be described here. Most of the workers guarding the important embassy were from Nepal and did not speak English, which is actually still the case. Collins wonders what President Eisenhower would think of this type of use of contractors. In his farewell address, Ike warned of "the potential for the disastrous use a misplaced power" if the Military-Industrial Complex" got too big. She asks, "when did we decide this was a good plan?" A Brookings expert puts it this way: "We created not a coalition of the willing. We're relying on coalitions of the billing."

To add troops or not? The debate continued into mid-October as Obama held meetings prior to his decision. If Al Qaeda is more of a threat than the Taliban, the President might focus more on Pakistan and drone attacks, without a need for more troops in Afghanistan. Can the Taliban be split up and/or negotiated with? Gates and Clinton have warned of the Taliban-Al Qaeda link and fear of safe havens. If the President asks for fewer than the 40,000 his general desires, Republicans will no doubt call him weak. Discover how Obama discusses and debates this decision. Who has the President's ear? See the multimedia graphic by scrolling down this mid-October article. Clinton and Gates are called "moderate pragmatists." As Secretaries of State and Defense, they cooperate much better than Powell/Rumsfeld, Rice/Rumsfeld, or Schultz/Weinberger under Reagan. Clinton and Gates have eliminated "some of the intramural tensions" during the Bush administration.

Will the US move to an all-out assault on the Taliban? More likely, leaked in October, was a protect the population strategy. 10 centers would be given the most attention, including Taliban-heavy Kandahar.

Since US actions in Afghanistan have a direct impact on Pakistan, see more details on Pakistan here.

However, there does appear to be disagreement between Obama and Biden. As Senator, Biden urged a surge in Afghanistan rather than Iraq, back in 2007. He is weary of Karzai and corruption. John Kerry, who took over from Biden as head of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, feels that Biden "is asking great questions and he understands this issue very, very deeply." Others criticize Biden for being on the wrong side in former votes. He voted against the Persian Gulf War, in favor of the Iraq War, proposed dividing Iraq into three sections. Writes Thomas Ricks of the Post, "When was the last time Biden was right about anything?" A few weeks later Biden responded to Cheney's criticism of Obama's "dithering" on a decision. Biden said, in essence, "Who cares [what Cheney thinks]?" Obama, not in direct response to Cheney. repeated that he would not be "rushed" into such on important decision.

What do Afghans want? This is hard to know, but there are some tentative poll results. In the fall of 2009, they were having similar discussions as Americans were, and voicing serious doubts. According to a Times front page story, they are "increasingly skeptical that the Taliban can be defeated. Nearly everyone agrees that the Afghan government must negotiate with the insurgents, as they US is already trying to do with moderate Taliban. They increasingly see the US as occupiers, especially among Pashtuns in the south. More US troops could make this feeling grow.

How do Americans feel? What do polls show? Those who approve of Obama's handling has dropped to 44% in September from 56% in April. A CBS poll in early September concluded that 41% of Americans want troop levels lower (up from 33% in April), while 25% want levels increased (down from 39%). In October, only 33% of Democrats think we "must win" in Afghanistan, while 66% of Republicans feel we must. However, 57% of Republicans say US forces should be decreased or stay the same. Will Democrats in Congress support a troop increase? Are Americans clear on the enemy? The mission? An exit strategy?

Those against adding troops talk about peace, finances, and helping the Afghan people. One specific sample is from The American Friends Service Committee.

Op-Eds in the fall of 2009 included Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek (9/21/09). The way out it to "buy off" our enemies. Zakaria opens, "It's time to get real about Afghanistan. Withdrawal is not a serious option" because have invested so much. We can't abandon the country because the Taliban are tougher than we thought. But there remains a gap between the goals of the administration and "the means available to achieve them. What can we reasonably achieve? Afghanistan is "not in a free fall." We should aim for a strong central government and a viable economy, which could require decades, as Afghanistan is "one of the 10 poorest countries in the world", one of the most illiterate, and has had "a weak central government for centuries. So, "the focus must shift from nation building to deal making. The Pashtuns are 45% of the country, including Karzai, but 100% of the Taliban. We need to "buy, rent, or bribe" Pashtun tribes. One official told Zakaria, "'Waiting to negotiate till you are in a position of strength is a bit like waiting to sell your stocks till the market peaks. It sounds good, but you will never know when the time is right.'" US officials should stop trash-talking Karzai because "we have no alternative." Security can be changed in three ways. more US troops, more Afghan troops, or "shrink the number of enemy forces by making them switch sides or lay down their arms."

Peggy Noonan, former Presidential speech writer and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, advises caution. It will be hell if we stay, and hell if we get out. "All in. All out. Double down. Withdraw. The language...is stark, as seem the choices." Noonan wants us to fully understand and have a true national debate of the facts, realities, challenges, and possibilities. Congress should hold hearings, as they did during the Bush presidency. and bring in a variety of experts. "Nobody, really, is certain what to do, or wherein lies wisdom...here is not particular guarantee of, or even a completely persuasive definition of, success." She wonders "which hell" is more "livable...In the immediate term, we should move slowly" while we "listen, weigh, and consider." It's a serious issue. "It's not as if the stakes aren't as high as they were in Iraq and Vietnam. It's not as if our decision won't have repercussions that echo down the decades." Why no hearings? She feels it is because the Pentagon does not want them. Is Obama like or unlike Lincoln? "At the moment he seems a sort of anti-Lincoln" who was early on "damages by Gen. George McClellan's leaking to his friends in the press, but Lincoln every day was focused on one thing, the war, and took no offense. He knew what was urgent. For Mr. Obama, many things are urgent. But when many things are urgent, nothing really is urgent." Noonan concludes, "Hearings would illuminate issues, air differences, broaden the picture, and make clear the stakes. And all of hose things would help spur decisions that spring from a things badly needed, consensus."

In another Wall Street Journal op-ed the writer suggest "revenge" to "finish the war they started." Novelist and law professor Thane Rosenbaum's piece is, "Evening the Score in Afghanistan."

Jon Meacham, commenting in Newsweek, cautions us to "know they enemy" and "then defeat him." The Taliban are very determined. "There is nothing simple about Afghanistan. Principled people can disagree, and do, about what should be done." Iraq seemed hopeless at one point, too. So, "the cause is worth fighting for."

In mid-October as the Health Care bill slowly made its way through the Senate, Afghanistan still made front page news. Op-ed pages were filled with advise for the Commander in Chief, including Thomas Freidman. In "Not Good Enough", Friedman worries that the Afghan government and Karzai are too corrupt and unpopular to be our effective allies (10/14/09).

Robert Pape, a University of Chicago expert on suicide bombings throughout the world, argued that to beat the Taliban, one must "fight from afar." We need to shift to a new strategy, with air and naval from a distance, while working with local security on the ground. McChrystal admits that US forces are a major cause of the deterioration, because they are, according to Pape, increasingly seen of foreign occupiers and because Karzai's government is corrupt and illegitimate. Pape has studied suicide bombings around the world (Iraq, Palestinian, Sri Lanka) and sees a clear common threat. Those who committed suicide bombings are from a region/country which feels their lands occupied by an outside power. Up until 2004, there was little terrorism. What changed? US forces deployed to other Afghan regions, leading to suicide attacks in homemade bombs. Suicide attacks increased:
2002 - 0
2003 - 2
2004 - 5
2005 - 9
2006 - 97
2007 - 142
2008 - 148
2009 - 60 (first half of the year)
Pape most recent book is Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.

Nicholas Kristof opined that "more troops are a bad bet," hoping we will learn from our recent experiences in Pakistan. (Times, 10/22/09). Nationalistic resentment is a fear of this commentator. Kristof was very hesitant about the Iraq War before it began.

In contrast, Senator and former Presidential nominee John McCain wrote in CNN that "We can--and must--win the war." It is critical to our national security. "Our goals...are achievable and success is worth the continued sacrifice." McCain adds that we must not "walk away" again when it "descended into a cauldron of violence, hatred and human rights atrocities that served as the base for the worst terrorist attack in history against our homeland. We cannot let that happen again, and we cannot let the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies conquer Afghanistan once more. Failure of this kin would also destabilize the entire strategically vital region, including nuclear-armed Pakistan. We know what it takes to succeed resolute commitment to the principles of counterinsurgency, which turned Iraq around during the surge."

Partially in response to McCain, comes Jonathan Alter in Newsweek, who examines the legacy of Vietnam and the Pentagon on US politics. The deliberations over the war are "shadowed by a sense" among Democrats that "they became too dovish after Vietnam and now need to assert their foreign-policy manhood. It's the same logic that led so many to vote for the Iraq War. But most Americans don't favor a wider war in Afghanistan, and they're right. John McCain lost the election. Charles Krauthammer doesn't represent any swing voters...It's 2009, not 1994 or 2002. Conservatives are noisy but irrelevant, and moving right to please them is not smart politics."

In late October Thomas Friedman added his voice to the debate. Years ago, Friedman wrote an award-winning book on the Middle East, and still visits there often. "Don't build up," he suggests. "It is crunch time on Afghanistan, so here's my vote: we need to be thinking about how to reduce our footprint and our goals there in a responsible way, not dig in deeper. We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources, or the national interests to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort..." If we reduce troops Al Qaeda may or may not return. His principle is: "In the Middle East, all politics--everything that matters--happens the morning after the morning after. Be patient. Yes, the morning after we shrink down...the Taliban will celebrate, Pakistan will quake and bin Laden will issue an exultant video." But, soon after, the Taliban will start fighting each other, warlords will carve up the country, and bin Laden, if he "comes out of his cave," will "get zapped by a drone." The Times columnist concludes that we cannot afford the 20 year project to stabilize and rebuild the whole country.

Diplomat Peter Galbraith was very concerned about the corruption. He was fired as special rep. for the UN Secretary General. Why? It seems that the American warned the UN about voter fraud before the election and after, but felt muffled. In "Afghanistan Votes, the UN Dithers," former US Ambassador Galbraith feels that the rest of the world "chose to ignore the obvious risks of fraud" before August 20 and the evidence afterward. Ghost polling centers were the main culprit in areas that were obviously too dangerous for voters. "All I wanted to do was to eliminate polling centers that did not exist," Galbraith wrote in his Times op-ed of 10/28.

Who are the Taliban? The question is not so simple. To what extent to the Afghan Taliban support Al Qaeda? There are significant differences between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban. They share an ideology and are mostly Pashtun but have "different histories, structures and goals" so that the mere name ("Taliban" means religious students) may be misleading. A Dutch researcher who lives in Kandahar, where the Taliban are very strong, feels that Afghan Taliban (founded in 1994, goal to oust foreign forces and Karzai) "couldn't care less what's happening to their Pakistani brothers across the border." The Pakistani Taliban's goals is to overthrow their government, but they were only founded in 2007. Pakistan's population is 5 times larger. Even so, most Afghan Taliban leaders are based in Pakistan. Al Qaeda goals are global, but the Afghan Taliban claim their interests lie only in Afghanistan. Founded by bin Laden in 1988, Al Qaeda original goals were to push out the Soviet Army. Bin Laden was aided by the US, during the Cold War.

Are the Taliban the main enemy? John Kerry spoke to this and other question in a lengthy interview on Morning Edition on November 6. "The cronies must be kicked out," he Senator urged. All Things Considered also tried to define the enemy on the previous day's show.

On October 22, Kristof wrote again about Afghanistan, and examined who the Taliban really are and what motivates them. "Some Taliban are fundamentalist ideologues who will fight us to the death. But others become fighters because they are paid to do so, because a tribal elder suggests, it, because it gives them an excuse for traditional banditry, because American troops killed a cousin, or because they resent infidel forces in their land." There are probably more Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen than Afghanistan. "That's not to say we should pull out, and it's a false choice to suggest that we should either abandon Afghanistan or double down. A pullout would be a disastrous signal of American weakness and would destabilize Pakistan." Kristof goes on to suggest that we should "scale back our aims" by protecting cities, ramping up training, and "peel off some Taliban commanders."

That same day on the Times oped pages, Council of Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot argued that there is no substitute for troops on the ground. We can now "clear, hold and build" in only a few districts. Boot spend 10 days with Gen. Petraeus and learned that "poor governance is an argument for, not against, a troop surge. Only be sending more personal, military and civilian, can President Obama improve the Afghan government's performance, reverse the Taliban's gains and prevent Al Qaeda's allies from regaining the ground they lost after 9/11."

See the helpful multimedia graphic on this article from "Reach of War" in the Times.

NATO ministers supported McChrystal in late October. Their governments might or might now go along. Britain might be less willing to increase their troops numbers after five Brits were killed by an Afghan policeman with whom they had been working. Soon after, a NATO airstrike killed seven Afghan soldiers, in a case of "friendly fire."

NATO troops will be sought by Obama. The US will ask for about 10,000 but expects fewer than 5000. Two concerns of Europeans are the growing unpopularity of the war and Karzai corruption. The Dutch and Canadians are withdrawing troops, not adding. The coalition now has 43 countries represented.

Frontline's "Obama's War" added to the October debate. The program can be viewed online, by chapter.

What can we learn from Soviet history? Transcripts of Brezhnev and his advisers show that the Soviets faced some of the same struggles in the '80s as the US faces now. The Soviets changed tactics frequently and tried to pacify the population. On Christmas Day 1979, the chief of the Soviet Defense Staff raised doubts and warned Premier Brezhnev that an invasion "'could mire us in unfamiliar, difficult conditions and would align the entire Islamic East against us.'" After about 10 years of war (the US has now been at war for for over 8 years), the Soviets were hesitant to withdraw due to a fall in their prestige, so they bombarded towns, "killing thousands of civilians and making themselves even more loathed by Afghans." Gorbachev (at left), who came to power in 1985 wanted to end "our bleeding wound." But he could not end the war "without losing face." Continued Victor Sebestyen in his 10/29/09 op-ed, "But Mr. Gorbachev dithered, searching for something he could call victory, or at least that other elusive prize for armies in trouble: peace with honor," a reference to Nixon's goal of leaving Vietnam. "We have not learned how to wage war there," Gorbachev added. "Withdrawal was a long, drawn-out agony. By the time the last troops left...in 1989, around 15,000 Soviet soldiers and 800,000 Afghans had died." Gorbachev wanted to make sure they did not die in vain. Yet, this marked the beginning of the end of the Soviet empire in Europe.

Kristof sees Presidents Johnson and Obama failing as Gorbachev did. LBJ and Gorby "doubled down" on a war they inherited. "They both inherited a mess--and made it worse and costlier...As with Americans in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan, we understate the risk of nationalist backlash. Quoting Greg Mortenson, author of Three Cups of Tea, who is most concerned that "there was never any consultation with the Afghan shura, the tribal leaders...One of the elders' message is we don't need firepower, we need brainpower, but not necessarily more physical troops." Kristof estimates that "for the cost of deploying one soldier for one year, it is possible to build about 20 schools." On a broader level, our military spending in Afghanistan alone next year "will now exceed the entire official military budget of every other country in the world. Over time, education has been the single greatest force to stabilize societies. It's no magic bullet, but it reduces birth rates, raises living standard and subdues civil conflict and terrorism" The Times commentator concludes, "My hunch is that if Mr. Obama wants success in Afghanistan, he would be war better off with 30,00 more schools than 30,000 more troops. Instead, he's embarking on a buildup that may be an albatross on his presidency."

Nicholas Kristof wants more schools, not more troops. More troops "would be a monumental bet and probably a bad one, most likely a waste of lives and resources that might simply empower the Taliban." The "stunning tradeoff" is that "for the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year we could build roughly 20 schools there." Kristof is inspired by Three Cups of Tea author Greg Mortensen, who has built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan. Not one "has been burned down or closed" because the local community supports it. Our $15 billion spent on Pakistan has not made it more secure. It is Islamic extremists who believe in transformative education, Kristof sees in his travels to Pakistan. "It breaks my hear that we don't invest in schools as much as medieval, misogynist extremists." He concludes, "Education isn't a panacea, and not policy in Afghanistan is a sure bet. But all in all, the evidence suggests that education can help foster a virtuous cycle that promotes stability and moderation. So instead of sending 40,000 troops more...how about opening 40,000 schools?"

Small is better with grass roots projects nurtured by villagers, proclaimed a front page Times story in mid-November. This avoids using the corrupt central government or private contractors hired by the US.

Is Afghanistan another Vietnam? While comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam have been discussed for years, Vietnam comparisons to Afghanistan only began in late 2009. Arguments include that it is a long war, the US cannot win, our allies in the country are corrupt and not popular, the costs are not worth it, an escalation will not help, and a Democratic President (like LBJ) is "doubling down."

"Bundy's Blunders", by Jonathan Alter (Newsweek, 10/12/09) examines the six lessons of Vietnam. Iraq tends to draw more parallels to Vietnam, but in 2009 Afghanistan is making the comparison. Alter points out the Vietnam and Afghanistan have important contrasts. He realizes that Obama does not want to explain "to the parents of dead soldiers why holding one dusty town in Afghanistan--but not one in Pakistan, where terrorists are allowed to gather, but the US military is not--made America safer. Vietnam analogies can be treacherous. Unlike the Viet Cong, the much-despised Taliban aren't authentic Afghan nationalists. Unlike the Democratic Congress in 1965, this era's Democrats probably won't sign off on a major escalation [if Obama asks them]. And unlike Vietnam, where US national security was not at stake, safe haven for Al Qaeda could lead to another attack." Alter was told by one senior administration official that "never in the history of mankind has a general requested fewer troops. Obama will not repeat Bush's approach of deferring to the Pentagon on key decisions."

On Veterans Day, veteran author Jonathan Schell wrote of "The Fifty-Year War", warning of the similarities with Vietnam. In 1965 it was undersecretary George Ball who described Vietnam was "a country with any army and no government." How is Afghanistan different, wonders Schell. "No army, either." Have we learned from history. Schell wonder "when so much was learned at such cost in Vietnam, is it necessary to learn it all again through additional bitter and futile experience? Anyone who lived through that period and examines the record that has been available since then has to be astonished by how much the policy-makers knew and understood about the reality of the situation even as they made their ruinous decisions." Johnson did not want to be blamed for losing Vietnam as fellow Democrat Harry Truman had been blamed for losing China. Schell asked if top advisers pushed us "into a disastrous war in order to win an election--or, to be more exact, to avoid losing one?" Today, Obama's special AfPak envoy is Richard Holbrooke He was an official in Vietnam in the mid-'60s. Mc Govern's lose in 1972 seemed to confirm "the fears which haunted Johnson: those who oppose or lose wars lose elections...And so, hanging over the scene, still, are the political pressures that go back almost fifty years."

The Vietnam echoes were picked up by Rep. David Obey, (D-Wis) who has served since 1969 under eight Presidents. In '69, Obey was determined to give Nixon a year to "see what he could do, because he had inherited the war, so I bit my tongue for a year...I said the same thing with Obama." When LBJ escalated the war, he said to an Adviser, "Well, we know this is damn near a fool's errand, but we don't have any choice," partly because of political pressure. Obey has little faith in the governments of Pakistan or Afghanistan. As powerful chair of the House Appropriations Committee, he is proposing a "war surtax" which seems unlikely to pass and Pelosi opposes it. Adds Obey, "I am damn tired of a situation in which only military families are asked to pay any price whatsoever for this war."

Back on October 20, the author of this site predicts that Karzai will please the US with his decision, and that Obama will go on TV during prime time to announce the rationale behind his troop decision. He will talk about the Taliban, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, 9/11, and Karzai. He will ask for more troops but fewer than 40,000. More Republicans will be more pleased than will Democrats, but few Republicans will admit that they agree with the President. It will not be on a Friday or Saturday night. The speech will not conflict with the baseball playoff or World Series schedule.

Karzai agree to a runoff for November 7. Sen. John Kerry was among those in the negotiations, which lasted five days. There was heavy pressure put on the long-time Afghan leader, including talks of linking US troop levels. The US has spent, to date, about 250 billion on the war.

Will the snows hold off until early November? As one article put it, the elections rest "on the backs of donkeys." This is literally true in the many remote regions. The highest passes, in late October, already have 6 feet of snow. One election official has to walk four days to reach the nearest road. Some voters last time walked six hours to reach polling centers. Will they do so again, given the past fraud?

"Karzai Relents", titled the lead Times editorial of Oct. 21. Karzai had officially received 49.7%, yet he seemed to dismiss any fraud. About 1/4 of ballots were thrown out. Karzai added, "The coalition [idea] has no legitimacy and is not possible." Abdullah Abdullah agreed that there would be no coalition before the election.

The Taliban, once again, are urging Afghans to boycott the election. Likely, they will threaten violence upon voters. Should the US offer jobs to the Taliban? US leaders feel that jobs are better than cash. That is the new policy in November, 2009. The Pashtuns are the core of the Taliban, in the mostly tribal society. Tribal leaders will be enlisted. Afghanistan has a long history of fighters switching sides, sometimes more than once. Already, 9000 insurgents have turned in weapons. This reconciliation plan is similar to the one in Iraq which created the Awakening movement to pull Sunnis away from the insurgency.

Taliban power continued to grow in the fall of 2009, as they re-opened a new front in northern Afghanistan. Their tactics are more sophisticated and they threaten a vital NATO supply line. Even with the influx of US troops, few are expected in the north.

Black jails still exist in Afghanistan (and Iraq at Balad AFB), but are no longer run by the CIA. Inmates are sometimes held for weeks at a time with no contact with their families and no access to the Red Cross. The concrete cells are windowless, with one light bulb on 24/7. Inmates don't know the time, so don't know when to pray. Obama had criticized Bush for such facilities, and cut in half the time prisoners were allowed to be held this way. No longer run by the CIA, they are now run by Special Operation forces.

14 Americans died in just one day of violence, October 26. Most were due to helicopter crashes. This is the worst day in four years and now part of the most deadly month of the entire 8 year war. At least 55 died in October. American deaths for all of 2009 were greater in Afghanistan than in Iraq, for the first time of the Iraq war. While 150 Americans were killed in Iraq (1/2 the 2008 total), 318 were killed in Afghanistan (double the 2008 total). See much more on US Deaths in Iraq. The issue of what to do in Afghanistan can certainly be confusing.....

With the runoff just one week away, shocking news came during Halloween, sources said that Abdullah Abdullah plans to boycott the election over disagreements with Karzai about how the election process should be fixed. If this is true, how much less credibility will the election have? Dr. Abdullah made his announcement official the next day, Nov. 1. Within hours, the election was called off and the US was praising Karzai and the man who would fight corruption. Said David Axelrod from the White House, "We are going to deal with the government that is there." Did the US play any role in Abdullah's decision? Abdullah urged Afghans not to take to the streets to protest or boycott the political system.

"Karzai's second term" was the lead Times editorial the next day. The "paper of record" feels that Afghan voters "deserved another chance" and the Afghan government "under assault from the Taliban and its own corruption and incompetence, desperately needed the legitimacy of a cleaner vote." But since Karzai has been re-elected "by default" he will have trouble gaining the trust of voters, after seven years of "mismanagement and corruption." The editorial continues that Obama had to "twist Mr. Karzai's arm to get him to agree to a runoff [a few weeks ago], is going to have to twist even harder to get him to build a viable government....The Afghan people need to see their government working to protect them and improve their lives if they are going to risk their lives and resist the Taliban." There is a need for a strategy "to try to win midlevel Taliban leaders in from the cold." Karzai and the US administration "don't' have much time to get this right. The Taliban's military strength is growing by the day. Americans' appetite for the Afghan war is evaporating nearly as quickly."

Karzai was sworn in to another five year term in mid-November, with Hillary Clinton in attendance. He vowed reforms and cutting corruption but many doubt either his sincerity or his abilities. Afghanistan is known as one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Is training Afghan soldiers the answer? It depends how dedicated they are. The current force is about 90,000, after 8 years of training by US and NATO forces. However, US commanders estimate that those who can "sustain themselves" is closer to 50,000. The forces are deemed to be poorly led, largely illiterate and often corrupt. The Afghan Army recruiters were offered a raise in December, which helped attract more. Taliban fighters had been paid more than regular Army forces. The lead Times editorial of December 5 (just after Obama's speech, see below), was on the Afghan Army. In general, the paper is supportive of the escalation. But they feel that the Pentagon will "have to do a much better job of recruiting, training, and retaining" these forces. Calls are to increase the Afghan Army from 90,000 to 134,000 by next fall, and 240,000 a year later. (As we learned in Iraq, numbers don't always tell the story, when they are not dedicated or effective). Challenges include 90% illiteracy and high desertion rates. Leadership in incompetnet and often not professional. Since most soldiers are paid in cash, they often need to go home to give the money to their families, going AWOL. The police in Afghanistan need to be rebuilt from scratch.

What is success? Americans asked this question more often in the fall of 2009. NPR's panel of experts replied (11/5 on All Things Considered). A strong enough government to lessen the power of the Taliban and any al Qaeda would seem to be a basic goal. How threatening our the Taliban to the US? Are they strong allies with al Qaeda? What role does Pakistan play?

Can the war still be won? Experts, professors, and diplomats with decades of experience formed a panel/debate for Newsweek. One, Steve Coll, felt that most Afghans are "sick of war, and afraid of the Taliban's return." Despite the fraud, there were no rocks thrown or large protests, unlike in Kenya a few years ago. "The ultimate exit strategy...is Pakistan's success." Replied another, "We're paying $65 billion a year just in military costs" which is bigger than the entire GDP of Afghanistan. "We could buy the entire place and put everyone to work." A third felt that the insurgents were "economic" just trying to make some money." Another felt that the Taliban were willing to sacrifice and give their lives, unlike the Afghan security forces. However, more than 100 Afghan police are being killed every month.

In Britain, the war was becoming increasingly unpopular. A woman whose son had died berated the Prime Minister, who had telephoned her to follow up on a hand-written note. PM Brown writes a handwritten note to the families of each Brit who dies in war. Polls showed the 65% of British want the troops to come home. Also that week, Brown reprimanded the Karzai government for its corruption and portrayed the Afghan government as "a byword for corruption. And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." With 9000 troops there now, 230 British soldiers have died, 97 in 2009, and seven in the past seven days. Yet, Brown did not want to "walk away" because if the Taliban succeed, al Qaeda will "once again cross the border and re-establish themselves." Britain was expected to add 500 troops to there current 9000, upon Obama's request. Yet, 70% of Brits favor an early withdrawal, a doubling in the past six months. If US soldiers begin dying in greater numbers, will US polls shift the same way?

Outside of Britian, France and Germany ruled out an immediate committment but Poland would increase from by 600 there force of 2000.

What will Obama's decision be? The nation waited as he took a trip to Asia. His review took three months. He will likely add troops, but probably with some sort of strings attached. I predict that if he wants Karzai to end corruption and wants a strong central government, he will be waiting a long time. Karzai seems to be the only game in town at this point. A decision in mid-November was expected, as the President was said to be down to four optons. Perhaps 30,000? Not until November did I ever hear that McChrystal's top request was 80,000 troops. I suspect that Obama is positioning himself to say that he is giving fewer than half the troops that the General thought might be needed. On Tuesday night, December 1, Obama would give a prime time speech on his Afghan decision.

Return to Top

In anticipation of the speech, we learned 30,000 troops, timing, a timetable, and "performance targets/benchmarks." Obama is determined to "finish the job." US goals would include keeping Al Qaeda from training in the region and bringing more stability to Afghanistan. To what extent will the President take on Karzai? The first wave will not arrive until 2010. Hawish Republicans warned of setting a deadline. Obama will need to rely more on Republicans than Democrats for support. Demorat Carl Levin feels that the key is "an Afghan surge not an American surge." Just a few hours before the speech Obama it was released that the drawdawn of US forces would start in 2011. Would this be down to 90,000 or closer to 50,000? How long would the withdraw take? What if the situation was not better, would the drawdawn be delayed?

US Ambassador Karl Eikenberry expressed doubt about adding troops. Others wondered if we would really pull out if Karzai doesn't do what we want. That seems like an idle threat. Should we prod, cajole, or bully? Aid without ending corruption will do no good.

On Pakistan, as it relates to Afghanistan, the President will need to tiptoe around tough issues. He doesn't want to publicly talk of US drones making constant attacks within Pakistan. Pakistan publicly condemns all such attacks. In December the US publicly pressed Pakistan to fight the Taliban more aggressively. Just after 9/11, Pakistan was one of the last friends of the Afghan Taliban. See much more on Pakistan. Another tricky issue is asking for more troops so that we can leave sooner. Author Ahmed Rashid, whose books a respect, feels that Pakistan remains the biggest problem. Another expert feels that Pakistan must crack down on militants in its own country.

What do Americans feel? Back in August, 51% feel the costs of the war are too great, while 44% say it is worth it. 45% are against sending more troops, while 24% agree with McChrystal's proposal. On the eve of the Obama December 1 speech, a slim majority feels the conflict "is no longer worth the sacrifice."
After the speech, a bare minority support the plan, up 10% since before the speech. Reupbicans seemed to be much more supportive the Democrats, but polls actually showed that Reupblican support was up to 42%, while Democratic at 55%. Overall, 55% think setting a date to begin withdrawals is a bad idea. Among them are Senator McCain. 60% did not want troops to stay more than two years, but a quick withdrawal beginning in July would have troops out at the end of 2011. The public probably does not realize that troops withdrawals can take 4-6 months, if done quickly. 32% think troops should leave within a year, while 39% think the US will become more safe from terrorism.

Overall, Obama's job approval rating, as high as 68% in April, dropped by early December to 50%.

Costs: Each US soldiers will cost about $1 million every year. Thus, 30,000 more troops equal $30 billion per year. $26 billion could be saved as the US withdraws from Iraq. The overall military budget is expected to increase 10% to over $700 billion, about $2 billion per day. Speaker Pelosi does not want to sacrifice the domestic agenda for an expensive buildup. "How can we ask the American people to pay a big price in lives and limbs, and also in dollars, if we don't have a connection to a reliabel partner?"

Obama's December 1 speech is found here in its entirety. We knew many of his ideas ahead of time: 30,000 troops, keep Al Qaeda on the run, support Pakistan, train Afghans, etc. Obama feels this is critical to help the security of the US, in language often echoing that of Bush. "None of this will be easy," the President warned us. We must add troops to more quickly bring about a "responsible" conclusions. Is this like Vietnam, Obama asked. No, that is a false reading of history. Deployments would begin in January, and some troops would start to come home in July, 2010.

One response was the lengthy editorial in the New York Times. They are cautiously optimistic about the plan. "Americans have reason to be pessimistic, if not despairing" with 800 US lives lost, $200 billion spent, and a "barely legitimate" government barely holding on. "For far too long--mostly, but no only, under President...Bush--Afghanistan policy has had little direction and no accountability." Americans need to know more about how we will pay for this war and when we can decide that the country can stand on its own. "Fighting on the cheap" as with President Bush "is a guarantee of defeat." The Afghan government cannot hold areas unless it ends corruption and appoints competent officials. The US faces a balancing act with Pakistan. The deadline is, overall, a good idea because Karzai needs to know that our commitment is not open-ended.

The Progressive writers were more critical, seeing Obama as not having learned the lessons of Iraq and sounding too much like Bush. Half of Americans thought he had not clearly explained his plan. One questions was, will Afghans step up against the Taliban?

Congressional hearings would begin a few days after the President's speech. Rep. Murtha wants to impose a surtax starting in 2011 for the two wars. Gates and Clinton were among the first to testify, supporting the President's policy. Karzai also warned that Afghanistan could not pay for its own defense until at least 2024, which surprised Gates.

How fast or slow will be the pullout, beginning in July 2011. At first the administration focused on pressuring the Afghans to "step up to the plate" and know that we will not be there for many years. However, there was some pushback from Pakistan and Republicans about the Taliban just waiting us out and disappointment in setting an arbitrary date. Within hours, Gates and Clinton emphasized that this pullout would be slow and flexible. Gates added, "The success of the Taliban would vastly strengthen Al Qaeda's message, to the Muslim world, that violent extremists are on the winning side of history." Some Democrats were not pleased. One expert feels that if the Taliban lie low, that would be a good thing, because the US could make progress on reconstruction and building allies.

How long will US forces stay in Afghanistan? Gen. James Jones, NSC Adviser, predicts that the US will be "in the region for a long time." Just before the speech, Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, said "We're not going to be there another 8 or 9 years."

Terry Gross, host of Fresh Air on NPR, spoke with Peter Bergen, the first journalist to interview Osama Bin Laden on TV. He assesses the threat of Afghanistan, including al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Thomas Friedman sees the need for Islamic allies. Those outside the US need to speak up more against the violence. In "www.jihad.com," the veteran Times columnist and author warns us not to fool ourselves. "Virtual Afghanistan" is a bigger threat to our national security than the real Afghanistan. This is the network of "hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against American and the West." He sees this web impacted the arrest last week in Pakistan of five men from northern Virginia. "We don't need more NATO allies to kill more Taliban and Al Qaeda. We need more Arab and Muslim allies to kill their extremist ideas, which, thanks to the Virtual Afghanistan, are now being spread farther than every before. Only Arabs and Muslim can fight the war of ideas within Islam" which needs to fight a "civil war". Friedman sees the jihadist minority having legitimacy in the Muslim world. There should be fatwas issued against bin Laden. He concludes, "If we want a peaceful, tolerant region more than they do, they will hold our coats while we fight, and they will hold their tongues against their worst extremist. They will lose, and we will lose."

Obama spent much of his Nobel Prize winning speech defending the escalation. Accepting the Peace Prize in Oslo in December brought a lead Times editorial. Feeling that the President was appropriately humble, the paper realizes the award was less for what he has done and more for what he "is expected to do." Ironically, Obama accepted the peace prize while defended his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He argued that the war was "morally just and strategically necessary to defend the US and others from more terrorist attacks." Invoking Gandhi and King, the President said, "'Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.'" The "paper of record" concludes, "We'll leave it to the philosophers to debate what is and what is not a just war. But we agree that this war is a very difficult but necessary one. We also know that there is no chance at all of winning it, and the broader fight against terrorism, unless the US hews to international standards and upholds it own ideas. That is Mr. Obama's promise and his challenge going forward."

How did the war plan evolve? In a lengthy analysis, the Times detailed the months leading up to Obama's speech. Some of the material is new even to the careful reader. The President's rare anger was stoked by leaks. His thinking evolved, as he was at first skeptical of his General's request. The "war of necessity", as Obama called it in August, did not make his December speech. The President asked, "Does America need to defeat the Taliban to defeat Al Qaeda? Can a counterinsurgency strategy work in Afghanistan given the problems with its government? If the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, would nuclear-armed Pakistan be next?" Biden was consistently opposed, arguing that Pakistan was the bigger priority. One option was indeed the 80,000 additional troops, but this option was kept relatively quiet. The veteran Gates, we are reminded, has served eight Presidents. Ambassador Eikenberry's strong reservations were leaked on Nov. 6. He felt that Karzai was not an "adequete partner" and continued to "shun responsibility." The July 2011 beginning of withdrawal was two years after the first added troops arrived, ordered by Obama in the spring of 2009.

Where will US troops be sent? Most will go the Taliban strongholds in the south and to population centers such as Kabul. Helmand and Kandahar provinces are sure to be in the news in 2010. Helmund produces the majority of the country's opium, while Kandahar is the spiritual capital of the Taliban. Afghanistan is much more rural than Iraq, so troops will need to be spread out more.

How should the US deal with Karzai? On the one hand he is the only game in town, just sworn in to another five year term. Jobs are auctioned off for up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The US plans to send more aid locally rather than funnel it through Karzai. How can the US pressure him? Karzai's cabinet was announced in late December. Several were viewed as incompetent and two have been accused of election fraud. Not one opposition figure was named. Can Karzai or does Karzai even want to make a strong central government out of a tribal society full of corruption?

Karzai's start was labelled "inauspicious" by the lead Times editorial of December 26. He "squandered a chance to shake up his government and chart a new course after eight years of mismanagement and corruption." The leader "still does not seem to understand that substantial and urgent change in needed--in policies and personnel--to fix a government that has lost credibility and is barely hanging on in the face of an increasingly powerful Taliban insurgency." Abdullah, his primary political rival, was excluded from the cabinet. Though Obama has not choice but to work with Karzai, he should continue to press for a better government, the paper concludes.

In early January, 2010, Parliament rejected 17 of Karzai's 24 appointments, showing their independence. One hopes they were rejected due to links to corruption or their incompetence. In February, Karzai claimed control of hand picking the election commission. His political opponents and international backers were dismayed. In essense, the Afghan leader is re-writing the election law.

How can the US succeed in Afghanistan? The New York Times editorial of Jan. 25 points out that killing Taliban fighters won't be enough. The Afghan government must persuade people to put down their weapons, in order to defeat the insurgency. Money alone also won't be enough. There needs to be a clear set of principles. "Karzai has made it far too easy for the Taliban. His government's corruption and incompetence have driven thousands of Afghans into the arms of the insurgency."

Where is bin Laden? The question is raised a few times every years since September 2001. Assuming he is alive, Sec. Gates assumes he is hiding in North Waziristan, in Pakistan.

Afghan police killed an Afghan Senator at a checkpoint, when his car failed to stop. Sen. Younus had been a mujahadeen commander during the war against the USSR in the 1980s. He is the 11th lawmaker killed since Parliament was created in 2005 under the new Constitution.

Violence: The worst was on December 30. About 8 Americans were killed, seven CIA, when a suicide bomber dressed in an Afghan Army uniform, somehow entered a fortified base in Kost, southeast Afghanistan. It was the most Americans killed since October. Will we ever know their names? Six agency personnel were also injured. How did the attacker, al-Balawi, know this area was for CIA? We learned a few days later that this Forward Operating Base Chapman had begun an aggressive campaign against a radical group run by Sirajuddin Haqqani. Operatives are more often out of the embassy and into the field. We also learned that the attacker was likely a double agent or an informer,which allowed him such close access. He told the CIA that he would tell them where top al Qaeda leaders were located, including second in command Ayman al-Zawahri. Back in 1983, it took 2000 pounds and a car bomb to kill 8 CIA at the US Embassy, but this time just one man did the same. Commented one expert on the PBS Newshour of Dec. 31, this attack was "like wiping out a battalion."

After a Jordanian double agent blew up the CIA agents the bomber, Balawi, was lionized on Islamist web sites, where for years he had been a popular jihadi blogger. In a video, he claimed the attacks were revenge for the 2009 killing of the Pakistani Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud.

"My heart is tearing apart," said the bombers father. But he was not surprised. "Fighting the arrogant, unjust, haughty and tyrant American who kills civilians and innocent people makes the whole Islamic world hate America. They say that Jesus gave his life to people. I way the Humam sacrificed his body and soul for the oppressed." Patients of the doctor-bomber spoke highly of him. Said another, "In our religion if you occupy one inch of Muslim land, you must follow the road of martyrdom." With many Jordanians of Palestinian descent, Jordanians are upset with the country's coordination with the CIA. Balawi had worked in a Palestinian refugee camp.

Oddly, Balawi chose to kill the CIA before he could figure out what they knew.

The day after this suicide attack, the US responded with 11 drone attacks which killed 90 people suspected of being militants. There was no mention of civilians casualties. Overall, drone attacks in Afgh-Raq doubled from 2007 to 2008.

See much more on Al Qaeda at "Next" FAQ.

A few Taliban groups claimed a role in the bombing.

US troops and personnel aren't the only ones being killed. Canada suffered its worst violence, as four soldiers and a journalist were killed by an IUD as they drove south of Kandahar. 32 Canadians died in 2009, and 138 during the eight year war. Britain has lost 95 this year and 232 overall, as of November. In December, France had about 3750 soldiers, while Germany had 4300.

How can the US decrease the number of death by IEDs? In Virginia, Simulators prepare soldiers before they deploy.

Afghans alleged in late December that NATO killed 8 schoolboys, reportedly taken from their homes, put into one room and shot at pointblank range with small arms. One witness was the school's principal, the grandfather of several of the boys. NATO responds that they were insurgents and IED smugglers. The killings came at night. Were the NATO forces all US or others, too? Karzai spoke out again against NATO forces. Protests in Kabul include signs reading, "End the Afghaniside." Most civilians are killed by insurgents not by outside forces. However, as a result of this and other attacks, the US and NATO will become less popular. A US colonel echoed past policy comments: "Every precaution was made to ensure there were no civilians in the vicinity at the time of the strike. however, we now believe there may have been civilian casualties as a result of the strike." Why do US officials and NATO almost always initially claim that no civilians were killed, when it is so hard for them to know for sure?

A new episode of more civilian killings came less than a week later. The Helmund attacks may have killed up to seven civilians, including three children.

Drone attacks are up under Obama. They doubled from 2007 to 2008 and were even higher in 2009. 2009 was the most lethal year for Afghan civilians, with about 2400 killed, and 3600 wounded, 2/3 killed by insurgents. This UN figure of 2400 is probably low, because only "recorded deaths" are counted. US and NATO, the UN concluded, killed 596, a 28% reduction. In one instance, locals were concerned about insurgents and grabbed their own guns, only to be shot by US forces. House searches, especially at night, continue to cause ill will. McChrystal is proud of the steps he has taken to reduce Afghan civilian deaths, even as drone attacks increase, the main cause of deaths. There are more flights (20/day, double last year) but fewer bombs being dropped, nearly one a day. As the General said, "We will not win based on the number of Taliban we kill, but instead on our ability to separate the insrugents from the cetner of gravity--the people." US and NATO troop deaths were 520, up from 290 the year before. See more on drones in the Pakistan FAQ chapters.

A "brazen" insurgent attack came to the streets of Kabul on January 18. One wonders if this could be like the Tet Offensive during Vietnam, when the U.S. embassy was under attack. Two men detonated suicide bombs and the other five fought to the death just 50 yards from the presidential palace. Guards assigned to guard Karzai even took up arms. The city was paralyzed for hours, as calm was shattered. Insurgent strongholds tend to be in rural areas.

The Shinwari tribe promised to ally with the US in January. One of the largest Pashtun tribes vowed to support the US-backed government, battle insurgents, send recruits, and burn down the home of any Afghan who harbors Taliban. In return the tribe of 400,000 in southeast Afghanistan would receive $1 million in local development projects. Afghan loyalities are historically fluid.

In late January, Gates urged the Taliban to "pursue legitimacy" by participating in elections, not opposing education, and not assasinating local officials. The US proposeds a reconciliation plan to provide jobs, security, and social benefits to Taliban who defect. Can the Afghan government help is such a plan? Only 170 Taliban defected in 2009.

Soon after, the Taliban vowed a "lighter touch" to win allies. To win local support and funding, and to take advantage of the lack of popularity in the central government, Mullah Omar's new code of conduct emphasizes a softer image and a ban on suicide bombings which kill civilians. Schools should no longer be burned down and there should be no cutting off of ears, lips, and tongues. The code seems to be unconsistently enforced. The US estimates up to 30,000 hard core dedicated Taliban but up to 500,000 who fight for pay.

A huge offensive was launched in February, with the support of British and Afghan forces. There were 10,000 troops involved against a few hundred Taliban. The target was southern Afghanistan, centered around Marja, a Taliban and poppy stronghold. With a population of 80,000, Marja is about the size of Evanston, IL. This was the largest offensive since the war began in 2001 and the first to directly involve Karzai. There was no element of surprise but the US wanted to counter Taliban propaganda in the area. Can the operation lead to the trust of the local people? Gen. McChrystal crystallized the goals: "This is all a war of perceptions." Marja is only "the first salvo" in a major campaign, promised Gen. David Petraeus in late February. It was seen as a campaign meant to "shift perceptions as much as to later the military balance, rush an enemy army or seize some vital crossroads."

Drones were used before the offensive to note were IED's were placed and where weapons were stored. There are over 400 video hours to view every day. Then, there were 14 drone attacks in first few days of the offensive. Drones vary. The Army and Marines have smaller drones, including models which are tossed like footballs to peer past hills. Some of the Reapers will soon carry 10 cameras instead of just one. The newer Reapers will fly faster and carry 500 pound bombs, like jets.

Eight Americans died in the first week of fighting, as the total US killed approaches 1000. (Iraq is over 4000 US killed). Markets began to open in Marja in late February and two "schools in a box" opened. How will we know when Marja is "won?" It will take months to determine if the people support the new government there.

About two days into the offensive, the US needed to apologize for a bomb that killed at least 10 civilians in one home, including five children. Said McChrystal right away, not waiting for "an investigation," "We deeply regret this tragic loss of life." The artillery barrage hit a building a few hundred yards away from the target, thought the GPS-guided system is advertised as being accurate enough to strike within a yard of the intended target.

That same week the Afghan police, operating near the Pakistan border, mistakenly shot seven civilians thought to be insurgents.

On Feb. 21, about 30 civilians were killed by US bombs from helicopters. Their convoy was mistaken for Taliban. It was the worst case since at least September. Karzai's response was typical: "The repeated killing of civilians by NATO forces is unjustified." Gen. McChrystal added, "We are here to protect the Afghan people." Winning the hearts and minds is becoming more challenging.

That same week Karzai was stongly criticized in a Times editorial for his "power grab." Karzai swore he would do better and Obama promised to hold his feet to the fire. Karzai is taking control of the watchdog election commission. This is seen as "hugely destructive" because the ineffective government is the Taliban's "#1 recruiting tool." The paper was "puzzled and disturbed" when Obama didn't or couldn't "pursuade Mr. Karzai to run a reasonably clean race. Aren't tens of thousands of American troops and billion of dollars in American aid enough leverage?"

Less than one week after the helicopter deaths, suicide and car bombers attacked the heart of Kabul, striking against foreginers in a guesthouse and killing at least 16, moslty Indians. Another guesthouse had been attacked in October. The capital is heavily armed.

In late March came a report that innocent Afghans continue to be killed at checkpoints. Since last summer, US and NATO forces have killed 30 and wounded 80, but those killed were never a danger to the troops. These numbers do not include shootings by private contractors. The shootings are less than those killed by airstrikes (which are down by a third in 2009), but have not dropped despite new rules. The results can be felt elsewhere, as when Bagram detainees joined the insurgency after the shooting of people they knew. Responded one village elder, "The people do not have any other choice, they will rise against the government and fight them and the foreigners."

There was a flag planting ceremony in Marja back at the end of February, despite continued small battles. Residents began to return. Services are beginning, those markets have little food. The US is hoping to win the "hearts and minds" of the citizens of Marja. Before fighters are inactive and bombs are defused could be a month, the US estimates. The governor promises the Karzai and his assistants will run the city better than the Taliban did. The Taliban had provided order and security, but closed schools, leaving some residents with mixed feelings.

How many Taliban have been killed? The Taliban say 7, but the US claims 120. Most fled before the fighting began.

When can Afghan forces take over? Not for a long time, it continues to be clear. Only 10% of Afghan police and soldiers are illiterate, so they cannot even read a licence plate or read simple instructions. (As a country, the rate is only 15%). Other concerns include Taliban infiltration (they usually pay more) and incompetence. The Times reported in early February that after 8 weeks of training, about 5% of recruits "cannot pass firearms tests, but are given a gun and sent out to duty." 1/4 of the officers quit every year.

When might US forces leave? Anti-war Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich forced a rare March debate on the question. Congress had not weighed in on Afghanstan since Obama announced his troops surge/escalation in December. He called for a vote that US troops be out by the end of 2010. The House rejected the proposal 356-65. The plan's supporters argue that the US is aiding a corrupt government and needed resources are being used overseas, and that the war is unwinnable. Those in the majority expressed that the resolution is "hurtful" to our troops and their families.

The Dutch government fell in late February over when their troops would leave Afghanistan. It now looks like all of their 2000 troops will be out by the end of the year. 21 Dutch soldiers have died in intense fighting in the south. 43 countries have troops in Afghanistan, with 40,000 total troops. Other European NATO countries might see this as an example and the floodgates could open. Many Europeans oppose their troops in Afghanistan. The Dutch Labor party had been promised a pullout, but Obama wanted them to stay longer. Labor then pulled out of the coalition.

Three days after the Dutch collapse, Sec. of Defense Gates warned of Europe's anti-military views. Already upset over lack on UN contributions to NATO, the Secretary said that opposition to the military had grown so great that it was directly affecting operations in Afghanistan. The US spends more on military than the next leading 10 countries combined. "The demilitarization of Europe--where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it--has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st." If Europe is perceived weak, this could provide " a temptation to miscalculation and aggression." NATO troops were to increase from 30,000 to 50,000 this year in Afghanistan.

Behind Taliban Lines was the Frontline episode on PBS in late February 2010. This is an intimate view of what it is like to be a Taliban. From the website, one can view the episode or find other helpful links. The Taliban hit back with a campaign of intimidation, including at least one beheading. Residents receive "night letters" posted on utility poles at at mosque, threatening those who collaborate with US forces. The underground campaign of subversion around Marja is countered by one soldier or police officer for every eight residents.

Talks about talks heated up in March. One rebel group presented a 15 point plan to Karzai, the first concrete proposal. Loyal to Hekmatryar, a brutal warlord, they are mostly in north and northeast Afghanistan and are separte from the Taliban but with links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

At the same time as talks about negotiations, the US declared its intention of an offensive in Kandahar, the spiritual home of the Taliban and Afghanistan's second largest city.

The US turns a blind eye to opium, we learned again in March. The Times front-page story examines the poppy crop around Marja. Commented Gen. McChrystal, "US forces no longer eradicate...We don't trabple the livelihood of those we're tyring to win over." But the Taliban profit from poppies. In a chicken and egg argument, one wonders is poor security in Marja is the cause of the vast amoung of opium, or is the amount of opium the reason for poor security?

The US may not turn a blind eye to a US official uncovered in mid-March. Michael Furlong, of the Defense Department, tracked and killed militants in AfghPak. He set up a private spy network. The operation was off the books. As the front page Times story points out, "It is generally considered illegal for the military to hire contactors to act as spies." However, this could get around the Pakistan governemnt's complaints about US policy. Furlong is part of a criminal investigation. The paper adds, "Even in a region of the world know for intrigue, Mr. Furlong's story stands out." This isn't the only time private contractors have been used for secret operations. For example, see Blackwater FAQ chapter.

Detainees held by the US in Afganistan were released in March, but wondered why they were held in the first place. They were asked to sign a documnet concluding that they were held based on reasonable intelligence, but they didn't know what the intelligence said. One said that "spies took money and sold me to the Americans." A crowded detention system can prodcue more insurgents than it reforms, as probably occured in Iraq. The program has been recently reformed, allowing detainees to make a case for their release.