Renewed US strategy for Afghanistan faces hurdles
0 Comments
U.S. President Barack Obama will face many new challenges in Afghanistan as he deploys additional troops to the war-ravaged country in a bid to transition security duties to Afghan forces, experts said.
 |
|
U.S. President Barack Obama delivers a nationally televised address at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York, Dec. 1, 2009. Obama said on Tuesday he is sending 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan by next summer to speed the battle against the Taliban and plans to start bringing some home in 18 months. [Xinhua/Reuters Photo] |
And in spite of the deployment, a number of old hurdles will continue to surface.
The president's announcement on Tuesday night to deploy 30,000 additional troops to war-torn Afghanistan comes eight years into a conflict that has grown increasingly unpopular with Americans.
The surge is part of a revamped strategy whose mainstay is the transfer of security duties to Afghan forces and an exit of U.S. troops beginning in July 2011.
The influx of new troops -- which will bring the total to more than 100,000 -- will be tasked with protecting population centers and training Afghan forces so U.S. troops can begin to withdraw in 18 months, Obama said.
"I do not make this decision lightly," said Obama in a speech at West Point Military Academy. "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake."
The president said al-Qaida remains a threat and hearkened back to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, when the Taliban hosted Osama Bin Laden and allowed him to use Afghanistan as a base.
No guarantee of success
Richard Weitz, fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Hudson Institute, said while there is no guarantee of success, the president's plan could work, although hurdles remain.
Indeed, many critics, especially Republicans, take issue with the withdrawal deadline, which they say will allow the Taliban to sit back, wait for U.S. forces to leave and re-emerge later.
Obama addressed that concern in his speech, saying it is time to allow Afghan forces to step up to the plate after eight years of U.S. involvement.
"It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan," he said, adding that keeping U.S. forces in the war-ravaged country deprives the security handover of any sense of urgency.
But the timeline for beefing up Afghan forces is tight -- experts said both the police and Army need to be doubled -- and Obama's deadline leaves only 18 months to do so.
Scott Payne, senior policy advisor at the Washington, D.C.- based Third Way, said: "Rapidly growing an army like that creates a lot of organizational issues, so we'll have to watch to see if it will be successful."
Indeed, Washington focused too much on the number of forces rather than the quality of training while building Iraqi security units during that conflict, he said.
Michael O'Hanlon, fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, wrote in a recent article in The Washington Times that the administration stands to succeed if certain measures are taken.
"If Mr. Obama approves most or all of Gen. McChrystal's recommendation for more NATO troops, and we build on other promising new initiatives, the chances of achieving our core strategic goals appear much better than ever."
