Tuesday September 15, 2009

U.S. needs shrewder Afghan strategy, say experts

By Luke Baker

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States needs a more cunning strategy on Afghanistan, with Russia, Iran, China and others brought into the policy debate if it is to achieve long-term success, a leading think-tank said on Tuesday.

Canadian soldiers rest between patrols at an outpost in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province, September 14, 2009. The United States needs a more cunning strategy on Afghanistan, with Russia, Iran, China and others brought into the policy debate if it is to achieve long-term success, a leading think-tank said. (REUTERS/Finbarr O'Reilly)

Launching its annual review of world affairs, the International Institute for Strategic Studies argued that, amid declining public support for the war in both the United States and Europe, more combat troops on the ground coupled with aid and political reform was not a sufficient strategy.

"A more cunning regional strategy is also necessary," John Chipman, the head of the IISS, said at the unveiling of the 2009 Strategic Survey in London.

"Measuring the balance between the continued application of military force and the negotation of political compromises... will be one of many complex tasks confronting the coalition in Afghanistan.

"But even that task can only be performed if Russia, Central Asia, India, Iran and China are brought into the debates and policymaking in a stronger fashion," he said.

Chipman referred repeatedly to the need to create "coalitions of the relevant", groups of countries with vested interests working jointly on issues in a way that cuts across traditional alliances, such as NATO, without isolating them.

"If the United States is both to limit the challenges to its authority and address key security challenges, it must do so through artfully constructed bundles of cooperation with the powers that are central to resolving any particular issue of concern," Chipman argued.

RIGHT STRATEGY?

The United States is currently pursuing a "surge"-style strategy in Afghanistan, similar to that which showed success in Iraq, with up to 30,000 more troops being sent to the country this year, lifting the U.S. military presence to 68,000.

At the same time, voices are emerging in Europe and the U.S questioning whether that strategy is right even before it has been fully implemented. In the U.S., some Democrats are having second thoughts about President Barack Obama's full-throttle approach to the conflict.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, said at the weekend that while troops on the ground were needed for security, there was a natural limit.

Helping Afghanistan "requires a commitment of some element of force which is currently present in Afghanistan, but it does not require a force that would be driven by the objective of achieving effective military control of all Afghanistan," he told journalists at a weekend conference in Geneva.

While the IISS appeared keen to promote the concept of "coalitions of the relevant", the strategy in Afghanistan is a U.S./NATO-led one, with the transatlantic alliance playing a command role and supplying about 60,000 troops of its own.

Britain, Germany, France and other NATO powers all have substantial numbers of troops committed to Afghanistan, although perhaps fewer than Washington would like.

There have been calls from the U.S. for NATO to provide more boots on the ground, but that appears unlikely, especially with the overall strategy still not crystal clear.

"Public support for the Afghan mission is weakening among states contributing to the political-military effort there," Chipman said. "It is therefore important to be reminded that NATO has no desire to garrison Afghanistan and that devolving power, responsibility and capacity to provincial and municipal leaders is the aim."

(Additional reporting by William Maclean; Editing by Matthew Jones)

News Poll

Latest Jobs from Star-Jobs

Latest from StarProperty