|
|
Debate: 2009 troop "surge" in Afghanistan
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is US President Obama's 2009 troop "surge" in Afghanistan a good idea?
|
Background and Context of Debate:
In 2007 and 2008, violence in Afghanistan steadily increased and the country became less stable, leading to calls for an increased US and NATO troop presence in the country, or a "surge". During the 2008 presidential elections, both Barack Obama and John McCain called for a larger focus on the war in Afghanistan and some form of a troop "surge" in Afghanistan. After winning the election, Barack Obama followed through with his campaign promise, calling for 20,000 new troops to Afghanistan and authorizing the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan on February 17, 2009 and an extra 4,000 later in the year to supplement the training of Afghan security forces. The extra 20,000 troops will increase the US presence from 32,000 to 52,000, bringing the total international troop presence to roughly 60,000.[1]
Throughout 2008 and into Barack Obama's presidency, debate was widespread surrounding the logic of a troop surge into Afghanistan. The main question is whether more troops can help improve security, or it they are actually drawing in insurgents and increasing violence, civilian casualties, and instability in the country. Also, players in the debate ask whether Afghanistan is the key front in the fight against terrorism and if a "surge" can help in this fight? Can the "successful" surge in Iraq can be applied with positive effect in Afghanistan? Does a troop surge escalate the conflict, or can it be temporary and limited? Will a surge reduce or increase civilian casualties? Will it improve, damage, or have no impact on the war in Iraq? Will it increase or harm regional security? Can US forces sustain a troop surge? Can the United States and NATO sustain the costs and opportunity costs to other domestic programs? Where do the Afghan, American, and global publics stand? What is the overall balance of pros and cons in this debate? Is Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan justified?
|
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Troops: Can more troops help in the war in Afghanistan?
|
[  ] Pro
- "Surge" provides necessary troops to secure Afghanistan US General David McKiernan - Commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A). November, 2008: "In [the] southern Afghanistan area, Helmand, Kandahar, quite frankly we do not have enough military forces there, international, Afghan Army, Afghan police, border police, to have sufficient presence in southern Afghanistan to provide for adequate security for the people. Those are the additional U.S. forces I've asked for that would go into the south, and the west eventually, to provide better security to reinforce our efforts."[2]
- Surge in Afghanistan is a necessary piece of larger puzzle Donald Rumsfeld: "Additional troops in Afghanistan may be necessary but they will not, by themselves, be sufficient to lead to the results we saw in Iraq."[4] This is a common argument. In general, if you a troop surge is necessary, it simply must be done. While it may be true that other things must be done as well, this does not undermine the importance and necessity of more troops on the ground; it simply means other things must be done in addition.
|
[ ] Con
- Troop surge feeds insurgency and terrorism in Afghanistan. A 2009 study by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban."[5]
- Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad-Mahdi Akhondzadeh said in April of 2009, "The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective, too."[6]
- "Surge" in Afghanistan will fail as Russians failed Former US national security adviser Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski said in regards to Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan: "I think we're literally running the risk of unintentionally doing what the Russians did. And that, if it happens, would be a tragedy."[7]
- Surge in Afghanistan continues failed Bush policies. Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA): "we can see that there is no difference between Obama and Bush for our country."[8]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Terrorism: Is the "surge" key to combating terrorism in Afghanistan?
|
[ ] Pro
- [...]this is not simply an American problem - far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it - too - is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake."
- [...] As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists.
- So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That is the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: we will defeat you."
|
[ ] Con
- Terrorism threat from Afghanistan is greatly exaggerated. Zaid Hamid, head of Brass Tacks, a think-tank based in Pakistan, argues that the terrorist threat from Afghanistan is small: "Their presence and capacity is greatly exaggerated. It is not possible that the so-called exaggerated threat perception by the West about another 9/11 attack being waged from Pakistan’s FATA or Afghanistan takes place."[9]
- Afg. terrorism is best fought by targeted strikes, not "surge". "U.S. considers sending special ops to Afghanistan". Los Angeles Times. October 26, 2008 - "Advocates of a plan focused on special operations argue that the top U.S. priority in Afghanistan should be preventing the country from again becoming a terrorist haven, an objective that could best be met by targeted attacks on militants in regions near the border with Pakistan." This does not require a "surge" of troops.
- Afg. "surge" is about ulterior motives, not terrorism. In a statement e-mailed to Asia Times Online, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) stated, "We think the 30,000 extra troops will only serve the U.S. regional strategy in changing Afghanistan to its military base, it will [have] nothing to do with fighting the terrorist groups, as they claim."[10]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Iraq analogy: Would a "surge" in Afghanistan "succeed" like the surge in Iraq?
|
[ ] Pro
- Surge in Afghanistan will succeed like the surge in Iraq. The "surge" in Iraq in 2008 proved to be a major success in calming violence there and stabilizing the country. The same strategy can work in Afghanistan, where there have never been sufficient forces to fight the counter-insurgency war. The successful "surge" and larger strategy in Iraq (which is troop-intensive) should be applied to the War in Afghanistan.
- John McCain said during the 2008 election, "The same strategy [...] in Iraq is going to have to be employed in Afghanistan."[11]
- Afghanistan and Iraq are different, but "surges" are similar. It is true that there are many significant differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, the main effects of a "surge" will be similar. Significant troop numbers are required to fight a counter-insurgency war, and the surge in Iraq and Afghanistan helps meet the minimum requirements. The surge provides a critical level of security for Iraqis and Afghans. And, more troops are required to train Afghan and Iraqi forces and to carry out various developmental operations. In general, more troops are required to carry out the multi-faceted and evolving strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
[ ] Con
- Surge has little chance of success in un-developed Afghanistan. Afghanistan is particularly under-developed. It lacks the literacy rates and levels of civic engagement present in Iraq. And, it lacks the natural resources (oil) and economic infrastructure present in Iraq. This makes the chances of a surge leading to a successful Afghanistan much lower than in Iraq.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Escalation: Is the "surge" temporary or does it escalate of conflict?
|
[ ] Pro
- Surge is required to stabilize Afghanistan, enable withdrawal. Before the US and NATO can withdraw from Afghanistan, they must stabilize the country. The faster this is done, the faster the US and NATO can withdraw. This requires that they increase efforts in the short-run, as was done in Iraq, address the immediate security problems in the country, and get the wheels turning again so that a successful withdrawal is possible. It is similar to shocking a patient back to life. It requires an immediate burst of extra energy, stabilizing the patient so that, eventually, no more medical attention is required and the patient can leave the hospital on their own two legs.
- Surge will help train Afghans so US/NATO can withdraw A March USNews and World Report article reports[13]: "Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan and now the deputy chairman of NATO's military committee, says that there is currently a shortage of maneuver and infantry forces in the country. What' s more, he adds, there are not enough troops to train the Afghan Army and police. 'That's the greatest shortfall,' he adds."
|
[ ] Con
- "Surge" in Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam. Antonio C. Abaya. "Obama's Vietnam". Newsweek. April 2, 2009 - "The Americans suffered 55,000 dead in Vietnam before they called it quits. How many decapitations on YouTube of captured Americans will the American public tolerate before they demand that their sons and daughters be extricated from the clutches of the Talibans? Fifty? One hundred?"
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Civilian casualties: Will "surge" help or hurt civilian casualties?
|
[ ] Pro
- Surge is essential to future rights and security of Afghans. President Barack Obama. "A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan". March 27, 2009 - "For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people - especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence." President Obama goes on to argue that the "surge" will help ensure that this does not happen. And, the argument goes, even if a surge increases civilian deaths in the short-term, it is essential to long-term security and peace for Afghans.
|
[ ] Con
- Anthony Fenton. "Afghanistan: A Surge Toward Disaster". Asia Times Online. March 18, 2009 - "Drawing from the lessons learned from the Iraq surge, U.S. generals have acknowledged that the expansion of the war in Afghanistan will result in higher levels of violence. [...] Any increase in violence will add to the already skyrocketing levels of civilian casualties in recent years. According to a report released last January by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, the 2,118 civilians killed in 2008 was an increase of 40% over 2007."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] War in Iraq: Will the "surge" help or hurt war in Iraq?
|
[ ] Pro
- Afghanistan troop surge is part of a just war there The War in Iraq was a war of choice, whereas the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity, in response to 9/11 and the need to fight terrorism. As such, the war in Afghanistan is - as President Obama puts it - "the good war", whereas the war in Iraq is more of a "bad war". To this extent, a surge of troops in Afghanistan is more justified than a surge in Iraq.
|
[ ] Con
- Surge in Afghanistan draws troops away from vulnerable Iraq. Thomas E. Ricks, author of The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008, writes (in the context of increased efforts in Afghanistan, "I don't think the Iraq war is over, and I worry that there is much more to come than any of us suspect."[16]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Region: Does surge in Afghanistan help or hurt regional security?
|
[ ] Pro
- "Surge" in Afghanistan is necessary to Pakistan's future One of the most important actors in the region is Pakistan. It is a nuclear power, has a large military, has been in a simmering conflict with India for decades, and is a very tenuous political state. It can easily fall apart, potentially leaving nuclear weapons and a large military in the hands of extremist Muslim groups, which could lead to a regional war. One of the most likely factors that could contribute to its disintegration is the devolution of Afghanistan into a failed state, with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and lawlessness dominating on the boarder region with Afghanistan. It is important that the US and NATO prevent this from happening by increasing troop numbers in the country and in the border regions. The "surge" helps achieve this mission.
|
[ ] Con
- Troop surge worsens security in Afghanistan and region. In a statement e-mailed to Asia Times Online, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) stated that "[Obama's] wrong and devastated strategy ... has pushed Afghanistan and the region toward disaster and deeper conflicts."[17]
- More troops will further destabilize Pakistan's border region. Zaid Hamid, head of Brass Tacks, a think-tank based in Pakistan, said in February of 2009, "The troops surge is what I would call, a historical and military fallacy. It is not going to work [...] The stationing of additional troops on the Pak-Afghan border is expected to create further instability in Pakistan’s border areas. The AfPak doctrine that lays the blame for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan on Pakistan’s tribal areas would create further destabilisation. It is bound to increase friction with the Pakistani security forces as the expected incursions across the border into Pakistan by coalition troops are likely to result in an open confrontation."[18]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Troop resources: Are there sufficient troop resources for the "surge"?
|
[ ] Pro
- Surge in Afghanistan re-deploys troops from Iraq. The main reason why the surge in Afghanistan is possible is because of troop draw-downs in Iraq in 2009. The initial idea of the surge was, indeed, to redeploy troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. So, the "surge" does not "add" new force deployments; it simply shifts them to a new front. And, the full draw-down of US forces in Iraq through 2009 and 2010 will certainly leave sufficient troop resources for such activities as the surge in Afghanistan.
- Afghanistan surge is temporary; not a long-term strain. The surge in Afghanistan is not a long-term operation. Within a year or two, it will be drawn down. It will not constitute, therefore, a long-term strain on the US military and on NATO resources.
|
[ ] Con
- Foreign governments will not contribute to troop surge. As early as December 2008, reports emerged that the United Kingdom would not contribute additional troops to the US troop surge in Afghanistan. Few other governments are willing to contribute. This leaves US alone to foot the bill for the troop surge.[19]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Costs: Are the costs of a "surge" reasonable?
|
[ ] Pro
- Security has no price; surge in Afghanistan is justified. Security is essential in the United States, as in any other country. It comes before other state interests, largely because the rights of all citizens depend on their security first. It is important, therefore, that a high price tag be allowed for security against any future 9/11. The "surge" fits within this "price range".
|
[ ] Con
- Al Qaeda's strategy is to drain US of resources in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden made the following statement in 2004: "All we have to do is send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the (U.S.) generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses ... so we are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy."[20] This quote has been cited as the likely result of a "surge" in Afghanistan.
- "Surge" in Afghanistan is costly to other US programs. Philip Gailey. "Obama surge risky too". St. Petersburg Times. July 27, 2008 - "But how long will Americans be willing to stay the course in Afghanistan, which could become another quagmire? And what price are they willing to pay in blood and treasure? The cost of a protracted war, even a good one, would burden the domestic agenda of an Obama presidency, making it more difficult to fund his health care plan and provide middle-class tax relief without adding trillions of dollars to the national debt."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Contractors: Is the use of contractors in Afghanistan acceptable?
|
[ ] Pro
- Contractors in Afghanistan lower strains on US military. In general, the use of contractors in Afghanistan and elsewhere helps lower the strain on an overstretched US military. While there may be costs associated with the use of contractors, it is essential to putting sufficient boots on the ground to get the job done in Afghanistan, as in Iraq.
|
[ ] Con
- Obama "surge" increases contractors in Afghanistan. Jim Hightower. "Obama's Triple Surge Into Afghanistan". Uruknet. March 25, 2009 - "What Obama has not mentioned is that, in addition to soldiers and civilians, there is a third surge in his plan: private military contractors. Yes, another privatized army, such as the one in Iraq. There, the Halliburtons, Blackwaters and other war profiteers ran rampant, shortchanging our troops, ripping off taxpayers, killing civilians and doing deep damage to America's good name."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Afghan support: Do Afghans support the "surge"?
|
[ ] Pro
- Afghan government and people support Obama's surge and strategy. Karzai told a news conference in March, 2009, "This is better than we were expecting as a matter of fact. We back it. It is exactly what the Afghan people were hoping for and we were seeking."[21]
|
[ ] Con
- Many Afghan citizens and leaders strongly oppose troop surge. Anand Gopal. "Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans". Christian Science Monitor. March 2, 2009 - "Frustration and fear is sparking opposition to plans that would nearly double the size of US forces there.[...] Parliamentarian Shukria Barakzai [...] is among the growing number of Afghans – especially in the Pashtun south – who oppose a troop increase here[...] 'At least half the country is deeply suspicious of the new troops,' says Kabul-based political analyst Waheed Muzjda. 'The US will have to wage an intense hearts-and-minds campaign to turn this situation around.' [...] The lack of public support could provide fertile recruiting ground for the Taliban and hinder US operations, Mr. Muzjda says."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con sources
|
[ ] Pro
- President Barack Obama. "A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan". March 27, 2009
- "The war in Afghanistan. Say you're staying, Mr President". The Economist. March 26, 2009
- "Gates Backs Buildup of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan". Washington Post. November 22, 2008
- "Commander in Afghanistan Wants More Troops". Washington Post. October 2, 2008
- "Petraeus urges Afghanistan troop surge". The Australian. December 10, 2008
- David Wood. "Afghanistan: Not enough troops". Baltimore Sun, Military Watch. July 15, 2008
- Al Pessin. "US Commander Hopes To Have More Troops to Afghanistan". Pentagon. November 19, 2008
- Trudy Rubin. "A Calculated Strategy for Afghanistan". Real Clear Politics. February 23, 2009
- "Expert Lauds Obama's Afghanistan Approach". NPR. March 25, 2009
- Hamid Shalizi. "Afghanistan welcomes U.S. troop 'mini-surge'". Reuters. January 10, 2008
- David Kilcullen. "The Accidental Guerrilla." Book. 2009.
|
[ ] Con
|
See also
External links
- Anthony Fenton. "Afghanistan: A surge towards disaster". Asia Times. March 14, 2009
- Robert Schlesinger. "The Obama Surge in Afghanistan—Smart Move?". US News and World Report. February 19, 2009
- "U.S., Afghanistan: Challenges to a Troop Surge". Stratfor Global Intelligence. February 18, 2009
- "U.S. considers sending special ops to Afghanistan". Los Angeles Times. October 26, 2008
- "Missing From the Afghan 'Surge': A Congressional Debate". Truthout. March 2, 2009
- Conn Hallian. "Good War, Bad War? The Coming Surge in Afghanistan". Counter Punch. August 14, 2008
- "The fierce debate behind Obama's Afghan plan". New York Times. March 28, 2009
- "Talk of a troop surge for Afghanistan". US News and World Report. March 21, 2008
- "Are more U.S. troops the answer in Afghanistan?". Newsweek, UserComments. Oct 2, 2008
|
|
