As Trump Announces Troop Surge, Here Are Six Blunders the US has Made in Afghanistan – Newsweek

The U.S. and its NATO allies launched their invasion of Afghanistan in 2001in a mission to oust the ruling Taliban and deny the militants who planned the 9/11 attacks a safe haven whileestablishing a democratic state.

Sixteen years later and the U.S. involvement in the central Asian country shows no signs of coming to an end.President Donald Trump bowed to pressure from military officials and announced a 4,000-troop surge Monday.

Below,Newsweek reviews some of theblunders the U.S. has made over the decade and a half of its involvement.

Keep up with this story and more by subscribing now

1. Going it alone against the Taliban

The U.S. made a key mistake early, in refusing help from NATO allies to defeat the Taliban after the invasion, according to experts.

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reportedly believed that defeating the Islamist militia was a task best accomplished by the U.S. alone, without other militaries getting in the way, and he appeared vindicated when the Taliban rapidly crumpled.

However, when U.S. forces were pulledout to take part in the 2004 invasion of Iraq, NATO forces were insufficient to prevent Taliban forces from re-establishing a foothold.

By the time NATO got involved big time, a new civil war was underway and the best opportunity to build a stable Afghanistan had been squandered, wrote Stephen Walt, the Robert and Rene Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard,in Foreign Policy magazine in 2014.

2. Planning based on wishful thinking

In a 2010 report, Pentagon chiefs detailed significant failings in the past decades U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The report reserved its toughest criticism for how the U.S. handled key transition moments, such as NATO’s 2006 takeover of military operations in Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan, the planning assumed that the chief dutyof international troops after 2006 would be reconstruction and humanitarian aidan assumption that turned out to be widely off the mark as theTaliban launched an insurgency.

A member of the Taliban stands at an execution site in Ghazni province, Afghanistan, on April 18, 2015. Stringer/Reuters

The reason, the report says, was that military planning was based on U.S. expectations instead of those consistent with the host nation and missionin other words, wishful thinking.

For example, the report notes, the planned end-state for Afghanistan was envisioned to be a strong central government despite no record of such a government in its history and lack of broad popular support for that system of governance.

3. Corrupt governance

The 2004 constitution for the post-Taliban Afghanistan established a republican state, in which the government in Kabul and President Hamid Karzai wielded enormous authority, bypassing local traditions of regional autonomy.

The system was ripe for exploitation by corrupt officials, who established extensive patronage networks. It alsolacked the resources and staff to function efficiently, rendering the country dependent on foreign assistance.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai during an interview in Kabul on December 25, 2014. Omar Sobhani/Reuters

Most Afghans care little for Kabul, however, and even less so for the men Kabul sends to lead their local governance. They want local officials who look like them, speak like them, and whom they know. The lack of coordination between top down government and bottom up democracy only adds to dysfunction, wrote Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School in 2012.

4. Spiraling drugtrade

In the wake of the 2001 invasion, the U.S. pledged to wipe out Afghanistans opiate trade, which is the source of much of the worlds heroin.

The U.S. government has spent $12 billion on eradication efforts, yet Afghanistan now supplies around 90 percent of the worlds opium.

An Afghan farmer cuts into a poppy bulb to extract the sap, which will be used to make opium, in a field in the village of Markhanai, Afghanistan, on May 6, 2002. Getty

Some critics argue that the higher prices commanded by opium as a result of eradication efforts has incentivized impoverished farmers to crow poppies, boosting opium production.

Others point to local corruption and flat-rate taxes imposed in Taliban-controlled areas as factors, with poppies cheaper to harvest and more lucrative than legal crops.

The Taliban has profited from the botched eradication efforts, forming cartels to control production and distribution,and taking an estimated $200 million to$400 million a year from the illicit opium economy.

5. Millions spent on Italian goats

The U.S. has spent hundreds of millions attempting to boost the legitimate Afghan economy, with the Task Force for Business Stability Operations (TFBSO), a U.S. Department of Defense agency, spending $800 million on various projects and initiatives from 2009 to 2015.

Among those detailed in a 2015 Senate hearing was a bid to boost the cashmere industry by importing nine rare Italian goats. The goats went missing, presumably eaten, and the $6 million project was never completed.

John Sopko, the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, testified at the hearing that many TFBSO projects had been managed poorly or not at alland that they suffered from waste, fraud and abuse.

6. Obama surge

Soon after taking office, President Barack Obama ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban, with the president initially committing 17,000 extra troops to the countryand then a further 30,000 in 2009.

President Barack Obama shakes hands with troops after delivering remarks at Bagram Air Base in Kabul, Afghanistan, on May 25, 2014. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The presidents decision to set a timeline forU.S. involvement in Afghanistan undermined the mission, critics say. The timeline notified the Taliban how long they would have to hang on until the U.S. presence dwindled and they could gear up their attacks, and it eroded the chances the militants would surrender, critics charge.

The U.S. began the drawdown of its militaryforces from Afghanistanin 2014.

Immediately, our NATO partners started charting their own departure, not necessarily on a coherent coalition timeline. Any Afghan official who cared about his own survivaltook the hintthat they should begin to make their accommodation to Pakistan, Iran, or the Taliban, wrote Rubin.

Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates had warned ahead of the Obamas announcement that a timeline could strengthen extremist groups.

Taliban and Al-Qaeda, as far as theyre concerned, defeated one superpower. For them to be seen to defeat a second, I think, would have catastrophic consequences in terms of energizing the extremist movement, Al-Qaeda recruitment, operations, fundraisingand so on. I think it would be a huge setback for the United States, said Gates in 2009 in a CNN interview.

Continue reading here:

As Trump Announces Troop Surge, Here Are Six Blunders the US has Made in Afghanistan – Newsweek

Related Post

August 22, 2017   Posted in: Stephen Walt |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."