Competing visions for Afghanistan

Soon after Barack Obama is sworn in as president, he will face a crucial decision about the future of the war in Afghanistan: what to do with thousands of new U.S. troops that will flow into the country over the course of the year.

Within the Pentagon, a vigorous debate has emerged about what the top priority should be for those forces.

Some Defense officials argue that the bulk of the build-up should be arrayed along the border with Pakistan, focusing on the fight with militants who move easily back and forth across the rugged terrain.

But others, including Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, who is now the top commander of those troops, want to see the U.S. take a page out of the Iraq playbook, making Afghan cities and towns their top priority to help protect civilians from Taliban extremists and other militants.

The strategic choices made in Obama’s first months could determine whether U.S. forces are able to curb the rising number of attacks there.

The new administration is planning an in-depth Afghanistan review as soon as it takes office; Obama has made clear his intention to focus on Afghan security, and his advisors say they are open to hearing from advocates on both sides.

But Obama is going to have to act fast to improve the situation in Afghanistan, military experts say. The Afghan public is growing more frustrated in the face of rising violence, and increasing numbers of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan is going badly.

Officers agree that any strategy will have to include a mix of population security and border control, in addition to training the Afghan police and army. But the question for the new administration will be: What should get top priority?

There are about 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, with an additional 20,000 scheduled to deploy this year. Current plans call for sending some of the additional forces to the border, but to use the majority of the new troops to safeguard villages and cities.

“There is a primacy on securing the population,” said Army Maj. Gen. Michael S. Tucker, director of operations for U.S. Forces-Afghanistan. “The approach is to reach out to the population, get into the villages, and separate them from the insurgency.”

But behind the scenes, not everyone agrees. Experts with opposing views spoke on condition of anonymity, citing their lack of authority to publicly address an internal debate. Obama advisors also spoke on condition of anonymity because he doesn’t take office until Jan. 20.

Some of those skeptical of the focus on securing towns and villages note that even with the planned buildup, there will be far fewer U.S. and local forces in Afghanistan than there were in Iraq during the 2007 troop surge, covering a much larger territory. Afghanistan’s population is more rural and dispersed, making local security improvements more challenging.

Most crucial, Afghanistan’s army is a fraction of the size of Iraq’s security forces.

With relatively few Afghan and allied forces, a strategy focused on securing the population is likely to fail, argue the critics, who would like the U.S. to pursue a more modest war plan: securing the border.

The ill-defined border with Pakistan has some of the world’s most difficult terrain. There are a limited number of mountain passes along the entire border, the officials argue, saying more could be done to prevent trafficking in drugs and weapons and the movement of fighters.

Afghan officials have warned the U.S. that the Soviet military effort in the country foundered precisely because of an inability to control the border -- allowing militants to escape to sanctuaries in Pakistan.

With more troops along the border, and with a variety of surveillance tools at their disposal, including spy satellites, drone aircraft and balloon-mounted cameras, some officials believe U.S. forces could dramatically reduce the flow of weapons and militants into Afghanistan and perhaps interrupt the flow of drugs out.

“If the border were completely shut down, the Afghan government and security forces could, in some period of time, get things under control,” a senior Defense official said.

Concentrating troops on the border also makes for less contact with Afghans, reducing perceptions of Americans as occupiers, these officials say.

“Pushing troops to the border, you remove those guys from the ever-present view of the Afghans, many of whom look at the Americans as just another invader,” the senior Defense official said.

But other Pentagon officials counter that the U.S. cannot control its own border with Mexico, so how can it hope to control a foreign border?

“Securing the border is always something that briefs wonderfully,” said a senior military official, referring to strategic presentations. “Then you go to places that don’t have very convenient geographic boundaries or consistently recognized political boundaries, and securing the border becomes very problematic.”

Officials agreed that improving people’s sense of safety is a cornerstone of counterinsurgency doctrine and must be a goal in Afghanistan.

“The Afghan people have lived under the Taliban, they aren’t anxious to go back to that,” said John Nagl, a retired Army officer now at the Center for a New American Security. “Unfortunately, when you can’t provide security to them, you allow the Taliban to coerce them into providing at least tacit support.”

The Afghan government largely has failed in its attempts to provide basic services such as courts, clinics and law enforcement. In some areas, the Taliban has provided rudimentary services.

Tucker, the director of operations, said the U.S. has never had enough forces to hold the territory it has taken -- or retaken -- from militants.

“We have had so few forces here,” he said. “We can go out and defeat the enemy anywhere we want to. What we can’t do is hold what we clear.”

A strategy of helping the population feel safe and secure would put the priority on holding territory and helping both the central government and local leaders begin to provide services, in hopes of undercutting support for the Taliban.

Such a plan, skeptics fear, could keep U.S. troops bogged down for years.

Yet counterinsurgency experts argue that the strategy remains America’s best hope for turning around the war.

“We can protect the border, and interdict movement back and forth, but we in effect preserve the status quo for the indefinite future,” said a senior military officer. “If we are going to do this thing, I can’t see an alternative to a clear, hold and build strategy that allows you to secure the population.”

Obama will have the benefit of at least three Afghan war reviews started by the Bush administration, in addition to the review planned by his aides. As part of a renewed war effort, he has called for improved diplomacy and redoubled efforts to help the Afghan government improve local services.

But the decision on how to deploy the additional troops is likely to be among his administration’s first crucial decisions on how to reshape the war.

--

julian.barnes@latimes.com