Foreign Policy Blogs

Afghanistan: Building, not Rebuilding

Contrary to the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates during the recent debates, new leader of the US Central Command Gen. David Petraeus provides us with some straight talk and analysis about the Afghanistan conflict and possible strategies for success.  However, his position is still political and politics seep through at times, especially regarding whether or not the US should use force inside of Pakistani territory, in this interview with Spiegel Online. The interview covers many of the questions we have gone over on this page, including: Can the "Surge' work in Afghanistan?, stability or democracy?, should the use force in Pakistani territory?, troop level needed for victory?, why exactly is the US in Afghanistan and what kind of commitment should it make?, and what is the role of NATO, what can NATO do?

01020131389600.jpgIn discussing the possibility of the US strategy in Iraq, basically the Surge and Sunni-US partnership, being translated to Afghanistan, Petraeus exhumes not confidence, but cautiousness, a regular practice for the man, as he adamantly calls himself not a pessimist nor an optimist, but a realist.  Concerning a shared strategy in both nations; "There are some ideas that will translate from Iraq to Afghanistan and there are many that will not. The first lesson of counterinsurgency, in fact, is that every situation is truly unique, has its own context, its own specific set of factors‚ and you have to understand that context in enormous detail to be able to craft a sound and comprehensive approach.'  Petraeus  acknowledges the challenges that Afghanistan brings that were not so dramatic in Iraq, in fact he stated that in Iraq  ‘you are rebuilding, and in Afghanistan you are building.’

He proceeds to describe the differing elements to each case and segues to the critical and deteriorating Pakistan/Afghan shared border situation.  Petraeus argues, along with ISAF commander Gen. David McKiernan, that you cannot approach Afghan on its own, that you have to view the situation as a region, not as one country or another.  Concerning the US conducting military strikes or incursions in Pak territory, Petraeus tippy toes around the question and just repeats the mantra that the US is in a "close dialogue' with the new Pak government to stem the tide of extremism.  According to this report, the new Pakistani government is making a move on a major extremists sanctuary.  Spiegel also asks the General about the importance of stability in the Pak and Afghan, even at the expense of democracy.  Petraeus stated that "both would be best' and then moves on. 

Now one of my pet peeves is that US politicians, Obama, McCain, and to a lesser extent President Bush, have failed to express to the American people, EU, and the world how difficult a task this is and why it is important for the Taliban and other extremist insurgents to be defeated.  In fact, Robert D. Kaplan just wrote a provocative piece analyzing why the US is in the region, is it because of just a Manhunt for Osama or do we have a greater regional mission?  Petraeus is unequivocally on the side of seeing the situation as a strategic necessity and argues that we must defeat the extremists in the Pak/Afghan border and greater region.  The General argues the US has "vital interests' in Afghanistan as do other countries.  His greatest stated concern is the return of an extremist sanctuary.  Lastly, concerning about the length of the conflict, Petraeus gives a sober assessment that Afghanistan "was going to be the longest campaign' of "the long war.'

What did Spiegel Online fail to ask the General?  What did he fail to answer?  Will Gen. Petraeus as Central Command leader have the same influence in Afghanistan as he had in Iraq?  Or will he be kept too busy by the many other important and strategic issues in the Middle Eastern region?  How were his answers different than the ones you have heard from the presidential candidates?

(Photo Source: Spiegel Online)

 

Author

Patrick Frost

Patrick Frost recently graduated from New York University's Masters Program in Political Science - International Relations. His MA thesis analyzed the capabilities and objectives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Central Asia and beyond and explored how these affected U.S. interests and policy.

Areas of Focus:
Eurasia, American Foreign Policy, Ideology, SCO