by Mark Silva
Afghanistan is not Sweden, says Army Gen. David Petraeus. Nor is it Vietnam, or Somalia.
It is a place, however, where an effective counter-insurgency working in hand with the building of governmental institutions can have the impact that the United States wants to have in thwarting the threat of terrorism there after eight years of war.
This, from the architect of a "surge'' of forces in Iraq credited for what he hailed today in Washington with a PowerPoint of the "combatant commander's perspective: A 90 percent decline in violence since 2007. Petraeus, now commander of the U.S. Central Command with responsibility for the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, maintained today that Kabul still is a mission possible.
The Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon asked the general about the best-known battlefield in the "axis of anxiety'' that he oversees - Iraq - at a Bloomberg Washington Summit today where political, military and business leaders have assembled for two days of talks at the Newseum.
"The surge was really a surge of ideas as much as it was a surge of forces,'' Petraeus said today.
Looking back at the planning of the surge, he said, he had assessed then that Afghanistan would represent the long war.
In Iraq now, this soft-spoken intellectual with four stars on his shoulders and a chest-full of medals, the level of violence is down 90 percent from where it was in the spring of 2007.
"Having said that, there is no question that there are resilient... extremists,'' Petraeus said. "There are still "a substantial number of car bombs and attacks,'' he said, but they have been curtailed to a level where Iraqis can get on with life.
But can the concepts that succeeded in Iraq work in Afghanistan, O'Hanlon asked Petraeus.
"The answer is yes,'' the general said, but they have to "implemented with a really nuanced understanding of Afghanistan.'' Counter-insurgency can work there, according to a military leader who is the leading expert on the tactic.
"Make no mistake about it, we're not trying to turn Afghanistan into Sweden,'' Petraeus said. "This is about trying to help them'' reinstitute governmental structures.''
One of the problems, he suggested, is that people stand to ready to draw "analogies'' to other conflicts - in Vietnam, or in Somalia, for instance. But Afghanistan must be viewed as the singular challenge which it represents, he said.
"I'm not going to talk about the decision'' about an increase in troop deployments there,'' he said, "But if there is, it is really hard to get additional forces in, compared to what we did in Iraq.'' Thousands of troops were deployed into Iraq each month with the surge, he said, but that is a tougher proposition in Afghanisan.
Are there some reasons for "guarded optimism?''
"I'm not an optimist. I'm not a pessimist. I'm a realist,'' he said. "The reality about Afghanistan is it's all hard all the time.''
"There is infrastructure there. There are some quite good ministries that have been established,'' he said, citing the Finance, Interior and Defense ministries. "There is an international community that is very much engaged... There are some important elements that can be built on.''
O'Hanlon noted today that Petraeus had sometimes talked about the inspiration he found in reading about past battles when the war was at its worst in Iraq, and reported that he had spoken recently with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan seeking a significant boost in forces there, who has been reading a book on tape recently. It's about Valley Forge.
Comments
Team Obama is starting to run the war in Afghanistan like they ran the war in the 60s and we all know how well that was.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 12, 2009 11:18 AM
Team Obama is starting to run the war in Afghanistan like they ran the war in the 60s and we all know how well that was.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 12, 2009 11:18 AM
________
I wasn't aware Team Obama was in charge during the 60's. Oh...wait...that's when he was "palling around with terrorists", right? Also, your comparison of the war in Afghanistan to Viet Nam is ridiculous. It will only become comparable if we decide to send 40,000+ troops over. Thankfully, we have a President that actually thinks before he acts. Conservative America will have to find something else to give it a hard on. We get ours the old fashioned way.
Posted by: WaitWut? | November 12, 2009 12:02 PM
I wasn't aware Team Obama was in charge during the 60's. Oh...wait...that's when he was "palling around with terrorists", right? Also, your comparison of the war in Afghanistan to Viet Nam is ridiculous. It will only become comparable if we decide to send 40,000+ troops over. Thankfully, we have a President that actually thinks before he acts. Conservative America will have to find something else to give it a hard on. We get ours the old fashioned way.
Posted by: WaitWut? | November 12, 2009 12:02 PM
From Pot, Prostitution and Porn?
Posted by: Old Fashioned Liberal | November 12, 2009 2:09 PM
Obama 'incompetent:' mathematics 'hard'
Posted by: Chris | November 12, 2009 2:58 PM
From Pot, Prostitution and Porn?
Posted by: Old Fashioned Liberal | November 12, 2009 2:09 PM
You made me spit Pepsi all over my keyboard. Got a little up my nose, too. That's not what I was thinking, but those three things combined are still safer (and more profitable) than war. Y'know...just sayin'.
Posted by: WaitWut? | November 12, 2009 3:56 PM
Gorbachev gives Obama advice on Afghanistan
Posted: November 8th, 2009 05:08 PM ET
As the American public and the global community await the completion of the Obama administration's extensive review of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Mikhail Gorbachev, the former president of the Soviet Union, said Sunday that, instead of sending more troops, Obama should begin to the lay the groundwork to withdraw from Afghanistan.
"I think that what's needed is not additional forces," the former Soviet leader said through a translator, "this is something that we discussed, too, years ago but we decided not to do it. And I think our experience deserves attention."
Instead of more troops, Gorbachev said the Soviets decided to emphasize domestic development in Afghanistan and promoting national reconciliation between the various clans in the country. In deciding how to proceed in Afghanistan, Gorbachev said the Soviet Union also consulted with other countries including the United States, Iran, Pakistan, and India.
source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/08/gorbachev-gives-obama-advice-on-afghanistan/
Posted by: BC | November 12, 2009 6:49 PM
Obama's #1 agenda is ramming the government takeover down our throats so he delayed this decision for fear of offending his left wing base in the House. It's pure politics and disgraceful. He goes to Dover to "honor" our fallen troops (photo-op) BUT refuses to give them needed reinforcements. More and more people are seeing that Obama is weak, indecisive and no leader whatsoever.
Posted by: Crooks_In_DC | November 12, 2009 10:24 PM
Petreaus? Petraeus!
Posted by: DaveB | November 13, 2009 9:06 AM
First the Russians got their ass kicked in Afghanistan,so Gorbachevs advice is less then credible.. As a retired Marine Msgt. and a former NCO under General Conway Commandant of the Corps, I have one thing to say. "If you are going to fight a war, " go for it." If not pack it up and come home. We grieve for our 5 Thousand dead brothers and sisters,as well we should. No one worries about 900,000 dead from Supersizing their asses out of their chairs into a coffin EVERY YEAR. General Zinni and many other Generals had a problem with Iraq. Afghanistan is who sent the bombers with Saudi $$ and training. So our Congress wants us to kiss the Saudi's and abandon the Afghanistan effort. No wonder people world wide lack respect for our country. No wonder Congress can't crack a 30%approval level.
Posted by: Brian F. Jordan | November 15, 2009 1:49 AM