Forget a Surge: Afghanistan Isn't Worth 'Saving'

Don't waste resources, troops on a hopeless country, writes analyst

By Jason Farago, Newser Staff

Posted Aug 14, 2008 1:23 PM CDT

(Newser) – Barack Obama and John McCain have strong disagreements over Iraq, but on Afghanistan they agree: a troop surge is necessary. Nearly 60% of Americans agree, as does the defense secretary, Robert Gates. There's just one problem, writes Bartle Breese Bull in the New York Times: even with a costly surge, there's little prospect of making "fractious, impoverished Afghanistan into an orderly and prosperous nation."

To "win" in Afghanistan would take three times as many troops as were sent to Iraq at the height of the surge, he estimates, and none of our stated goals there, including disrupting terrorist havens, justifiy it. "The invasion of Afghanistan was a great tactical success and the correct strategic move. Yet since then it seems as if the United States has been trying to turn the conflict into the Vietnam War of the early 21st century." Instead, he argues for restraint: "train the Afghan Army, support an Afghan state generously in other ways and maintain our intelligence and surgical strike capacities."

[Images (3)]

[Quotes (3)]

A British soldier of International Security Assistance Force patrol as afghan people look on, near the site of a suicide attack on a NATO convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, Aug 11, 2008. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

Soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force stand guard near the site after a suicide attack on NATO convoy in Kabul, Afghanistan, Monday, Aug 11, 2008. (AP Photo/Rafiq Maqbool)

A truck, right, transports coffins containing bodies of foreign aid workers in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2008. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

Our principal ally at the beginning of the war, the Northern Alliance, controlled more of the country at the end of 2001 than President Hamid Karzai, our current principal ally, effectively controls today.

American counterterrorism interests in Afghanistan appear to argue for something far more restrained than our current commitment there, maybe 20,000 Western troops maximum.

A successful occupation of Afghanistan, which is larger, more complex, more populous and very much less governable than Iraq, would require 400,000 troops.

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

To report an error on this story, notify our editors.

More Newser Stories

Obama Buying Time With Afghan Surge

Measure more geared to buying time to revamp strategy on conflict

(NEWSER) - Barack Obama intends to sign off on a Pentagon plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, the Washington Post reports, but not because anyone believes this new “surge” will turn around the failing war effort. Obama’s team expects the move, which will nearly double US presence in the country, to simply buy time to re-evaluate strategy. More»

Afghan Army to Soldiers: Cut Ties to Pakistan, or Quit

Afghan National Security Force desperate to root out infiltrators

(NEWSER) - Afghan military officials have begun ordering soldiers to move any family they have in Pakistan out of the country, or else leave the military, in a desperate attempt to rid their ranks of Taliban infiltrators. While those orders haven't yet been translated into an official nationwide policy, they represent just how serious the problem of Taliban sleepers has become, the Washington Post reports. Officials have also created a "special reconnaissance group" to investigate what soldiers do on leave—particularly if they head to Pakistan. More»

US, Afghanistan, Taliban: Secret Talks Under Way

Hamid Karzai is in Pakistan today to discuss negotiations

(NEWSER) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrived in Pakistan today, one day after telling the Wall Street Journal that his country has entered into three-way peace talks with the Taliban and the US. Karzai is in Pakistan to discuss the negotiations and request that country's help; Islamabad's cooperation is necessary, since Taliban fighters have reportedly been receiving support from Pakistan, the New York Times notes. The recent talks signal a breakthrough, considering the Taliban has up until now insisted it would not negotiate with Karzai's "puppet regime." More»

Taliban: Prince Harry Shouldn't Kill

'Captain Wales' to return to Afghanistan this year; he'll be Taliban target

(NEWSER) - Newly qualified Apache helicopter pilot Prince Harry is expected to return to Afghanistan for a tour of duty this year, and the people he might be shooting at aren't happy about it. "A prince should use his position to help people, not to come and kill people around the world," a Taliban spokesman tells the Telegraph . Harry, whose training included a stint in the US , is expected to serve as a co-pilot gunner in a two-man crew. More»

US Eyes Switch to Special Ops in Afghanistan

Focus to be on training, special missions, not policing

(NEWSER) - The United States may be wrapping up its combat operations in Afghanistan a year early, but the fight against insurgents and terrorists will continue in the form of US special forces, who are expected to stay in the country well after 2014, reports the New York Times . According to the Pentagon's plan, which has not yet been greenlighted by President Obama, conventional forces would be the first to withdraw from Afghanistan, but thousands of special forces would continue, or perhaps grow, especially Green Berets. More»

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most thought-provoking and entertaining stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Partnering with: Slate

View Newser on the mobile website

Forget a Surge: Afghanistan Isn't Worth 'Saving'