What Next in Afghanistan?

Counter-Terrorism or Counter-Insurgency?  Good People Disagree 

Ralph Peters, a good and patriotic retired Army Colonel with lots of active-duty contacts, disagrees with General Stanley McChrystal's proposed strategy.  Peters is a keen military mind from the General Sherman "War is Hell" school of war fighting who supports a Counter-Terror strategy for Afghanistan that involves less troops and more predator strikes.  His criticism is respectful, giving full props to the general.

Such debates and reasoned disagreements are productive, especially for us non-experts who want the best for our troops and our country.  We need to hear from all responsible corners while tuning out the chickenhawks on the right and the "General Betrayus" screaming idiots on the left.

PRESIDENT Obama faces three options in Afghanistan. Hints from the White House suggest that he's going to choose the worst: a non-decision decision.

The McChrsytal Plan: Surge 40,000 more US troops from a weary Army to renew the failing effort to apply our counter-productive counterinsurgency theory -- which attempts to cure cancer with herbal tea.

The Biden Strategy: Focus ruthlessly on the destruction of al Qaeda and its auxiliaries across the border in Pakistan or wherever they may appear in Afghanistan. This is the counter-terror practice that's worked for 3,000 years.

The "Vote Present" Strategy: Send a token increase of 10,000 or so troops, make cosmetic changes to the mission, try to please everyone partially -- and kick the can down the road.

The evidence on the ground, the lessons of history, and our real security needs strongly favor the Biden approach, but giving Gen. Stan McChrystal the full surge he wants would be far better than "more of the same, with new slogans."

I don't know what to think for sure, but I tend to side with McChrystal because he's the guy on the ground responsible for 100,000 US and coalition troops.  However, Peters does make a good case that though a brilliant tactician and operator, perhaps the general is missing the bigger strategic picture. 

Those quick to criticize McChrystal as a "touchy feely" enemy coddler need to remember he is a Green Beret who has also been through the grueling Army Ranger School.  He spent five years in Iraq hunting down high value targets.  Saddam Hussein and Musab al Zarqawi are his most famous trophies.  His efforts were also key in forging alliances with the Iraqi Sunni Sheiks and turning them against Al Qaieda.

Trade-Offs

There are no crisp, clean solutions here.  If there were, there would be no disagreement.  His emphasis on protecting the locals and being more judicious with airstrikes has been criticized by Peters and others for causing more troop casualties. 

McChrystal wants to erase the locals' perception that we are indiscriminate bombers who care nothing of their life or property.  Blackfive, a blog of military experts who come from the trenches, has an excellent article on General McChrystal's Tactical Directive.  Read it here.  

McChrystal is a special operator so he brings that mentality to his strategy. It includes getting out of the armored personnel carriers and integrating with the locals to protect them and peel them away from the embedded bad guys.  This too will surely bring more casualties, but the counter-insurgency experts say this will eventually pay dividends as the locals grow to trust us and provide intelligence needed to find and snuff the terrorist interlopers.

Part and parcel of this, also criticized by the right more than the left, is the prospect of rehabilitating Taliban fighters willing to lay down arms. 

This is not a stated part of McChrystal's plan, but it goes hand in hand with counter-insurgencies.  Making nice with Taliban fighters who lay down their weapons, rehabilitating them, would be far from unprecedented.  We just did that in Iraq.  The FMLN and the Sandinistas, Central American leftist guerrilla movements we helped El Salvador and Nicaragua defeat in the 1980's, are now unarmed political parties in their respective countries. 

We didn't even attempt to dismantle Noriega's political party after the Panama invasion.  It also helps to recall we did not kill every last Nazi and Japanese Imperial soldier.  We prosecuted the criminals and rehabilitated the remainder, who reintegrated with society.

It's Us against Them

The ultimate aim is to split Al Qaeda from Afghan society and kill them or drive them from the country.  It's us against them, and McChrystal want the "Us" to be the Afghan people and our ISAF forces.  McCrystal's "Them" are the Taliban fighters and Al Qaida. 

This is not how things shake out right now, but he believes a patient counter-insurgency strategy can get us there.  Stay Tuned.    

WaPo - McChrystal Plan
NY Post - Ralph Peters
Blackfive - McChrystal's Directive
FT - McCrystal