Getting Up To Date On: Afghanistan

By Steve Hynd

We hope all our American readers had a good Thanksgiving. But the news keeps rolling on despite holidays, so it's time to play catch-up with foreign policy and affairs. Let's start with Afghanistan and the ongoing U.S.-led occupation there.

With Obama's speech on his new Afghanistan strategy due on Tuesday, we already know pretty well what's going to be in it thanks to copious leaks. There's going to be between 30,000 and 40,000 extra troops announced alongside some form of exit strategy that will involve Afghan security forces standing up "so we can stand down".

There are a couple of prospective flies in the ointment, though. One is that Obama is relying on forever-poode-ish Britain to convince NATO and other allies to up their own commitments and provide troops to train those Afghan security forces. Gordon Brown has so far approached 10 nations, and has promised 500 extra British troops if he gets the rest to chip in. Germany has agreed 150, Slovakia 200 and Georgia 700. France won't send any more but Italy are considering it. Still, Brown looks set to come up a few thousand short. Nor will any of those additional forces be sent quickly many will likely wait until Brown's summit in January to make any final decision. Undaunted, Brown intends today to make a speech talking up a 'McChrystalesque' strategy despite the fact that the success of "surges" is being considerably overhyped.

Another set of problems come from the Afghans themselves. There's a big question over whether corruption there is simply too deeply rooted to overcome, and the Afghan Army has a 25% annual desertion rate.

Lastly, the "build" portion of the COIN trifecta of "clear, hold and build" is problemmatic, in that the bulk of the building going on is of military bases for US troops.

In the 2008-09 financial year, the United States Agency for International Development (Usaid) gave out $20 million in contracts while the army awarded $2,200 million (of which more than a third was for military construction); the 2009-10 financial year sees a further $1,300 million committed to 100 projects at forty sites.

Just like in Iraq, we're seeing the U.S. occupation gearing up to outstay its welcome. Although the Afghan ambassador to the U.S. is talking about security handover in a maximum of five years, just like his president, the White House is saying more like nine years.

Check out Tom Engelhardt's great post, The Right Speech Barack Obama Won't Give on Afghanistan, for what I agree Obama should say but won't.