Save this content for laterSave this content on your device for later, even while offline Sign in with FacebookSign in with your Facebook account Close

More U.S. soldiers may be heading to Afghanistan. That might not solve the problem

By: Pamela Constable, The Washington Post
May 11, 2017 Updated: May 11, 2017 at 3:44 pm
Caption +
U.S. Marines raise the American flag during a handover ceremony at Camp Leatherneck in Lashkar Gah in the Afghan province of Helmand on April 29. (Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images)

KABUL — The emerging signs that the Trump administration may send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan are generating a variety of reactions here, including relief at a signal of strong commitment from the new administration in Washington, and worry that it may not be enough to turn around a long, expensive war that the Taliban has fought to a draw.

But many Afghan observers agree on one thing: Without a complementary political policy aimed at bolstering the weak ­Kabul government, pressing fractious leaders to get along and fending off the country’s meddlesome neighbors, no U.S. military surge alone can solve the broader problems that have made peace and stability so elusive.

U.S. Marines salute during a handover ceremony at Leatherneck Camp on April 29. (Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images) 

“There is more fighting and more ground held by Taliban now than ever before, and increasing the troops can help reverse that,” said Abdul Bari Barakzai, a member of the government’s High Peace Council. “But people have lost their trust in the government. No matter how many troops you bring now, it will have no lasting impact unless there is real reform and good governance.”

Earlier this week, after a lengthy review, top Trump administration advisers were reported to be urging an ambitious new military role in Afghanistan, led by the Pentagon, with at least 3,000 troops added to the current 8,400, to halt the country’s deteriorating security and push the Taliban back to the negotiating table. President Trump is expected to make a final decision this month.

Such a policy would dramatically ramp up American involvement in the war, which was systematically cut back under President Barack Obama. By the end of 2014, most U.S. and NATO forces had left the country, leaving ­Afghan troops struggling to hold off a determined Taliban insurgency, at a loss of life that a U.S. watchdog group recently called “shockingly high.”

Today, Afghan officials and experts agree that the defense forces are desperately in need of both short- and long-term U.S. assistance — more equipment, air support and Special Operations partnerships as the summer fighting season intensifies, and more troop training and leadership reforms so that the defense forces can become self-sufficient.

“Our biggest challenge is the Taliban. We need help to keep up the pressure and force them to negotiate,” said Sediq Siddiqi, a spokesman for the government of President Ashraf Ghani. “We’re not waiting for the U.S. to go in and take over, but we need help with the transition,” he said. “We need the Taliban to feel the pressure, and we can’t do it alone.”

No one in Afghanistan, though, sees the insurgents as operating in a vacuum. Rather, the insurgents are viewed as capitalizing on widespread perceptions that the state is weak, corrupt, consumed with internal and external rivalries, and unable to deliver services, jobs, reforms and modernization.

A wide variety of Afghans, asked this week whether the United States should step up its military presence, almost immediately raised the issues of poor government performance and ­political quarreling as significant deterrents to peace. One civic activist described the government as being in a state of “continuous crisis.”

Some said it was more important for foreign allies and donors, especially the United States, to help resolve these problems than to immerse themselves again in a bloody civil conflict. And many said that it was equally crucial for the United States to press next-door Pakistan to stop harboring anti-Afghan insurgents, a charge Pakistan has denied.

“A U.S. troop increase can be effective, but you need to put maximum pressure on Pakistan to stop training and sheltering terrorists,” said Gen. Mirza Mohammed Yarmand, a former deputy interior minister. “The challenge of leaders bickering in the government is far more serious,” he added. “Without sorting out these two issues, there will be no peace in Afghanistan, whatever amount of money you spend here and whatever number of troops you send.”

The Trump administration has said little about Afghanistan’s government problems and has not yet announced any policy ­decisions on Pakistan, although it has hinted at using both economic and diplomatic sanctions against its former Cold War ally if the Islamabad government does not do more to rein in violent Islamist groups.

Read the full story at The Washington Post.

Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Incognito Mode Your browser is in Incognito mode

You vanished!

We welcome you to read all of our stories by signing into your account. If you don't have a subscription, please subscribe today for daily award winning journalism.

Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Register to the Colorado Springs Gazette
Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

It appears that you value local journalism. Thank you.

Subscribe today for unlimited digital access with 50% fewer ads for a faster browsing experience.

Already a Subscriber? LOGIN HERE

Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

It appears that you value local journalism. Thank you.

Subscribe today for unlimited digital access with 50% fewer ads for a faster browsing experience.

Subscribe to the Colorado Springs Gazette

Some news is free.
Exceptional journalism takes time, effort and your support.

Already a Subscriber? LOGIN HERE

articles remaining
Thank you for your interest in local journalism.
Gain unlimited access, 50% fewer ads and a faster browsing experience.