Strategic Errors in Obama’s Af-Pak Policy
The president’s naïveté in expecting a new age of international cooperation was revealed when NATO rejected his request for additional combat troops. NATO did agree to send 3,000 troops, but they will quickly depart after the August elections. The fight in Afghanistan is growing in unpopularity across Europe. This should be no surprise; NATO troops have been in that country since the toppling of the Taliban, although several of the countries which sent troops were prohibited from actually engaging with the enemy. British and Canadian troops have been battling the Taliban in the southern part of the country while German troops in the northern half were relegated to strictly surveillance.
President Obama needs to rethink his counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and concentrate on rooting out the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the narcotics network they rely on to fund their activities. It was not until October 2008 that NATO troops could combat the drug cartels in Afghanistan. (Before October, they were not allowed to destroy narcotics factories or engage drug facilitators. The logic there was that locals would be hostile to having their cash crop wiped out.) Part of a renewed strategy should be alternative cash crops, while understanding that opium production is incredibly lucrative. However, an attempt must be made to persuade farmers there to contribute to countering the proliferation of narcotics.
An increase in troops, roughly 15,000, will be needed to secure our logistical lines and increase our efforts on civil affairs. More civilians who have expertise in critical infrastructure and development are needed, but they must have the security to do their jobs. Our forces have been kept out of parts of the Helmland province in Afghanistan, a key opium producing area and Taliban stronghold. It is time to attack those cartel networks. Also, it is time to pressure the Pakistani government to conduct a focused counterterrorism effort in their own cities like Quetta. Behtullah Mehsud has free reign to operate there and we must tie U.S. taxpayer aid to progress in rooting out the enemy. In addition, we must be cognizant of other influences in Afghanistan apart from Pakistan, like the encroachment of Iran and its specialized militant forces, the Quds Force.
The battle in Afghanistan will be an enduring struggle and has implications for regional stability. We have reconciled with many of our former enemies in past battles and there will be some Taliban elements we should persuade to lay down their weapons. But we cannot be so naïve to think extremists who deny basic human rights to their own people will be open minded to change. The president must do a better job of articulating the threats and explaining how to combat them. The campaign season is over and it is time to give the facts to the American people.





His long range goal was never to actually have to govern.
His goal was twofold: to win the election and to impose his ideology on the United States.
The inconvenient truths that his ideology contains many “strategic errors” and “unanticipated consequences” is not a serious issue as far as he and his handlers are concerned.
I think we’re setting the bar too low for Obama, we should expect him to accomplish more than he has, if we don’t…he won’t!
Obama has articulated his strategy in detail:
Talk to 95% of the Taliban, that are smart enough to promise cease-fire in
exchange for the complete dominance over Afghanistan. The Taliban have no
reason to use force. They just have to act like reliable guys and the WH
Press Corps will do the rest
Perhaps he will apologize to OBL, The Prez. (apologizer in chief) seems to be quite good at apologizing to everyone in the world.
Isn’t he doing another apology tour in Mexico and where ever he is today….
If you read some of the foreign press, you will see that there is a lot of skepticism about Obama.