US exit strategy in Afghanistan takes shape
The next – and likely final – phase of the war in Afghanistan seems to be taking shape. The Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid optimistically calls it “fight and talk,” while India’s Brahma Chellaney pessimistically sees it as “surge, bribe, and run.” Both seem accurate, depending on your point of view.
The US media is reporting extensively on the upcoming US assault on Taliban in Helmand. The Asian press, by contrast, is focusing much more attention on Karzai’s outreach efforts to the Taliban, and the widening rift between Karzai and the Obama administration. Putting these pieces together allows us to make some predictions on the US’s exit strategy in Afghanistan: everyone gets something and no one gets everything.
- The US gets to claim that the surge has weakened the “bad” Taliban.
- The Karzai government gets to claim that it ended the war by negotiating with the “good” Taliban.
- The Taliban gets to say that it stood up to the US for 8 years and prevailed.
While this is clearly simplistic, I think this is how the narrative is likely to evolve. There are good and bad points to this “plan.”
Ending the war is clearly good. The US is never going to commit to the level of troops and resources required to defeat the Taliban. According to counter-insurgency experts, the US and its allies would need at least 500,000 troops to eliminate the Taliban, and I have seen no evidence that the US or anyone else is prepared for this level of commitment.
The bad – or should I say sad – point is that the exit strategy looks like theater: the US beats up the “bad” Taliban while the Afghan government negotiates with the “good” Taliban.” The whole effort seems like a largely a face-saving exercise for all parties. If the US government considered the Taliban an existential threat to US national security, it would not be considering an exit strategy that requires separating “good” from “bad” Taliban.
The war in Afghanistan has cost close to $750 billion and almost 40% of that expenditure was in the last year alone. It is sad that the end result of all of this is likely to be a negotiated settlement with the Taliban that the Obama administration might have been able to reach before spending all this money.
Leave a comment
Sign up for our mailing list
Posts by Region
Posts by Topic
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2012 (5)
- January 2012 (13)
- December 2011 (10)
- November 2011 (14)
- October 2011 (19)
- September 2011 (25)
- August 2011 (10)
- July 2011 (16)
- June 2011 (14)
- May 2011 (14)
- April 2011 (16)
- March 2011 (20)
- February 2011 (15)
- January 2011 (24)
- December 2010 (16)
- November 2010 (24)
- October 2010 (27)
- September 2010 (17)
- August 2010 (42)
- July 2010 (40)
- June 2010 (65)
- May 2010 (72)
- April 2010 (38)
- March 2010 (18)
- February 2010 (32)
- January 2010 (46)
- December 2009 (45)
- November 2009 (38)
- October 2009 (15)
- September 2009 (24)
- August 2009 (11)
- February 2009 (1)
Who we like
- AfPak Channel
- CIPE Blog
- Countries at the Crossroads
- Cyrus Samii
- Democracy Arsenal
- Democracy Dialogue
- Democracy Digest
- Democracy Resource Center
- EITI Blog
- ElectionGuide.org
- Fruits and Votes
- Global Voices Online
- One Blog
- Open Budgets Blog
- Open Democracy
- Policy and Power
- Progressive Realist
- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Blogs
- Space for Transparency
- The Coming Prosperity
- The Democratic Piece
- The International Jurist
- The Kaufmann Governance Post
- United Nations Democracy Fund
- Zunia.org



