EXPERT WITNESS – AT 10:58 A.M. ET:  Urgent Agenda regularly receives information from special sources who cannot be identified.  Here is a report from a very knowledgeable American of impeccable credentials about the situation we're now facing in Afghanistan:

The situation in Afghanistan is in steady decline: casualties are up as is the amount of territory under de facto Taliban control.   As expected, Obama's delay in providing McChrystal the resources he needs to do authentic counterinsurgency operations is allowing the Taliban to get a little stronger every day.  The troops originally requested under Bush/McKiernan are just now arriving and having an impact.  It is too little too late, for all the obvious reasons.  In a country as remote and compartmented as Afghanistan, the enemy is extremely fungible.  With limited assets, a little good done here is undone there because we cannot in be in enough places at once.   A couple of observations:

*   McChrystal startled me with his extremely blunt embrace of at least some portion of the Taliban in some sort of power-sharing arrangement.  This possibility was always tacitly understood, but I was surprised to see it stated so starkly.  The Taliban, I think, will read this as a sign that they are winning and they will be reluctant to go to the bargaining table when they think they can win in the field.   

*   Pakistan's recent "success" against their own Taliban was extremely limited and simply returns things to the status quo:  Punjabs are left to rule in Islamabad if the FATA Pashtuns are left to their semi-autonomous territories.  This does Afghanistan little good.   Pakistan was also recently blunt in outlining their real security interests, interests that do not necessarily align with our own. In a recent Financial Times article, Pakistan’s security establishment, which wields influence over the Afghan Taliban, says it is ready to facilitate talks to end the Afghanistan conflict in return for greater US backing in its competition with India for regional influence.

 Counterinsurgency is successful when its civil and military components are complementary and reinforcing.  The Petraeus/Crocker model is credited for much of the success we enjoyed in Iraq. So it was interesting to see US Ambassador (to Afghanistan) Eikenberry's cables in the papers stating such pronounced opposition to McChrystal's strategy.  The problem may be that while McCrystal is clearly the top dog among the military players in Afghanistan, Eikenberry is just one of many civilian voices who have influence.  In any event, it was dismaying to see his position "leaked" to The New York Times, as it must certainly encourage those who wish us ill.

In sum, things have not significantly changed in Afghanistan.  Pakistan remains a sanctuary, we do not have enough troops, and the chain of command remains fundamentally dysfunctional, hampered by a NATO structure that is more designed to provide the appearance of solidarity than the actual unity  of effort required for military operations.  

In fact, the only real change seems to be increasing strictures on our troops' latitude to defend themselves with overwhelming firepower.  Though well-intentioned (collateral damage, real or manufactured, is a good Taliban recruiting tool), it will inevitably lead to more coalition casualties as small unit leaders and pilots hesitate at critical moments.

I remain pessimistic.  The London Conference is likely to be what such gatherings regarding Afghanistan always are – a good forum for strong postures and forceful words – but it will produce little that commits or binds.

COMMENT:  An authoritative, but grim picture.  The question is whether we have the leadership in the United States that is committed to overcoming the problems and moving toward victory, or something approximating victory.

Well, Mr. Obama boasted in last night's speech that we're on track to have American forces start leaving Afghanistan in 2011, a pledge he's made to appease his political left.  Our enemies undoubtedly noted this, and will plan accordingly.  It's hard to be optimistic with the kind of leadership we have in Washington, with no great prospect for change until 2012.

January 28, 2010