A more secure Afghanistan that no longer depends on the coalition for its survival remains an attainable objective, but a greater focus on killing Taliban and al-Qaida fighters will not achieve it. Two things will: winning the active support of the Afghan populace and bolstering the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Full Story »
Posted by Kaizar Campwala
The argumentation for an approach sounds very much like official US counterinsurgency military strategy applied with an American viewpoint to the Afghanistan situation. There is scant input of views from Afghans or regional experts. The Center for a New American Security appears to be primarily oriented to a strong military United States.
The problems are multi-faceted problems of societies, survival, religion, tribes, and history, that are only partly addressable by military means. If your only tool is a hammer, everything gets treated like a nail.
Rosen makes a effective argument in favor of Obama's plan to increase US engagement, military and otherwise, in Afghanistan. A little weak on evidence.
By isolating themselves rather than the insurgents, the coalition permitted the Taliban to regenerate in the countryside. Additionally, the lack of adequate troop levels ... More »
Not very carefully written, but insightful nonetheless. Rogan argues that in order to achieve stability in Afghanistan, the United States must court the Afghan population and prop up the government, not increase its fight against militants. Relies more on logic than evidence to make its case. Some of the language here is weak and academic.
Retrieving Comments
