Share

Gates Warns of Prolonged Commitment in Afghanistan

by: Ann Scott Tyson  |  The Washington Post

photo
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warns that Afghanistan will be "a long slog." (Photo: Reuters)

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today signaled sharply lower expectations for the war in Afghanistan, warning the conflict will be "a long slog" that U.S. and allied military forces - even at higher levels - cannot win alone.

    Gates said the U.S. military expects to be able to send three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan from late spring through midsummer to fill a security vacuum "that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban."

    Still he said that he would be "deeply skeptical" of any further U.S. troop increases, saying that Afghan soldiers and police must take the lead - in part so that the Afghan public does not turn against U.S. forces as they have against foreign troops throughout history.

    U.S. goals in Afghanistan must be "modest" and "realistic," Gates said in his first congressional testimony as Pentagon chief under President Obama. "If we set ourselves the objective of creating some sort of central Asian Valhalla over there, we will lose, because nobody in the world has that kind of time, patience and money," Gates testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Valhalla is used as a synonym for heaven, but in Norse mythology it is a great hall where heroes slain in battle are received.

    Civilian casualties resulting from U.S. combat and airstrikes have been particularly harmful to progress in Afghanistan and must be avoided, Gates stressed. "My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution; and then we are lost."

    Gates also warned of Iranian interference in Afghanistan, pointing to a slightly increased flow of weapons and components of lethal munitions known as "explosively formed projectiles." He said Iran wants to "have it both ways," seeking economic and diplomatic benefits of relations with Kabul while trying to impose "the highest possible costs" on U.S. and coalition troops.

    Iranian activities have been troubling in other parts of the world, he said, including Latin America, where he said Iran is setting up "a lot of offices and a lot of fronts."

    "Iranian meddling is a concern" there, he said.

    On Iraq, Gates said Pentagon and military leaders are working on several timetables for U.S. troops to move from a combat to an advisory role beginning as early as 16 months from now and extending until the end of 2011. The options and their risks are being presented to Obama, who will meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon tomorrow to hear their views, Gates said.

    At the Pentagon his priority will be to reform the cumbersome acquisition process, he said, while crafting "a unified defense strategy that determines our budget priorities."

    "The spigot of defense spending that opened on 9/11 is closing. With two major campaigns ongoing, the economic crisis and resulting budget pressures will force hard choices on this department," he said.

    In particular, he criticized "entrenched attitudes throughout the government" that he said "are particularly pronounced in the area of acquisition: a risk-averse culture, a litigious process, parochial interests, excessive and changing requirements, budget churn and instability, and sometimes adversarial relationships" between the Pentagon and other parts of government.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

USA out of Afghanistan and

USA out of Afghanistan and China out of Tibet. There are only TWO reasons our military is in Afghanistan, One - An oil pipeline, Two - Drugs. Give me another reason. The Taliban isn't really a good one.

Suffering delivered equals

Suffering delivered equals suffering returned. Intention delivered equals intention returned. Results delivered equal results returned. What part of connecting the dots are we not getting? The Afghan people, and people generally including you and me, have plenty of problems without aggressive, or any for that matter, military processes allegedly or purportedly protecting or spreading "freedom. " Swords into plowshares, please, everyone. Save lives, save money, save energy, save the planet, save a friend, save yourself.

Nations have been losing

Nations have been losing battles, wars and their own economic and political stability for years in wars with Afghanistan. when will we learn? G. Mortenson in hisbook "Three Cups of Tee" shows how to win the "hearts and minds" of the Afghanis, war lords and all. By quietly supplying food, education, healt care, tribe by tribe, he made great inroads into friendship withe the Afghanis. Are we going to cancel all that, and continue on a proven road to disaster?

BIG TEST FOR OBAMA. Our new

BIG TEST FOR OBAMA. Our new president is obviously smarter and more moral than George W., but that's not enough. President Obama said his role models were King and Gandhi, both pacifists. Gates should have been replaced, not carried over. He has been a war criminal for decades. Obama needs to get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq NOW!

Look on the Bright Side!

Look on the Bright Side! Gates is "deeply skeptical" of adding more than the troops he's adding--to plug up security vacuums, not going out and attacking, and says he's aware of the danger that Afghans will see the US as the enemy if there are too many US troops there. He also says his goals there are "modest." What we really need is a meaningful development program that will show Afghans some progress in their own lives. Why should we be there at all? The Taliban has made no secret of its alliance with al Qaeda; it would likely make territory available to it; it would also aid in a radical Islamist takeover of Pakistan by its Pakistani affiliates. That is not something to pooh-pooh, given Pakistan's nuclear weapons, nor, given militants' progress in Pakistan, is it unthinkable. It may be true that Bush's major motivation in invading Afghanistan was to pin the blame on AQ, and to secure the oil pipeline the Taliban was blocking, but I doubt that is Obama's reason. To withdraw from Afghanistan would be to hand over that whole region to Islamist militants dedicated to war on the West. Think of Afghanistan as the key to Pakistan, and Pakistan not only has the Islamic Bomb, but it is a major country with the second largest Muslim population. Do we really want to watch WWIII begin between India and a militant Pakistan? Better to attempt to win the Afghans' support, but that first requires re-establishing basic security for Afghans before significant development is possible. That's why more troops are truly needed there. I just hope those troops are really used for security for Afghans; now Afghans are turning to the Taliban because they are the only ones so far to stop the local violence, crime and corruption--of course inserting their own violence to enforce control. The counterinsurgency strategy should be to force the Taliban to disrupt security instead of providing it, force them to attack Afghans instead of controlling them, but that takes troops to enforce the peace. As soon as possible those troops should be Afghans.

..is unsustainable. I

..is unsustainable. I thought Barack was smarter than to go there. He reads more history than his predecessors.

misterioso is SO right.

misterioso is SO right.