Afghanistan: no way out, says serving U.S. officer
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Article Link
NATO and coalition forces are "stumbling toward failure" in Afghanistan and no amount of military success against the Taliban will bring an end to the war without a fundamental change in political policy, says a provocative article written by a serving U.S. army officer.
Col. Thomas Lynch, contributing in the latest edition of The American Interest, a Washington-based policy journal, says the U.S. and NATO cannot win in Afghanistan without convincing both Afghans and Pakistanis that Western military and economic support is there to stay.
Only a permanent NATO force - of the kind that guaranteed the security of western Europe after the Second World War, and still safeguards the security of South Korea - can bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan, says Lynch in his article titled "Afghan Dilemmas: Staying Power."
Lynch served as special assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Kabul in 2004. For the past four years he was stationed with the U.S. army in Afghanistan, Iraq and Qatar, and is now on a temporary fellowship with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank.
In an e-mail interview with Canwest News Service, Lynch also says Canadian forces should consider leaving Kandahar - handing their hard, counter-insurgency role to the Americans - and taking on a new "stability" mission in the less volatile areas of northern or western Afghanistan.
"I am a longtime fan of Canadian military forces," he says. "I served with them in Europe during the Cold War in my early career, and saw them daily in their NATO-ISAF stability and security duties around Kabul in 2004 and 2005. They are good troops."
Yet, despite his admiration for Canadian soldiers, Lynch says Canada, like most European allies, lacks the equipment and resources - helicopters, close-air support, logistics and "economic support tools" -to take charge of the tough, counter-insurgency work required in southern Afghanistan.
He says the U.S. "miscalculated" when it gave NATO control of the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan in 2006, thinking that peacekeeping and stability work would follow.
Instead, the Taliban insurgency flared up, forcing Canada and other NATO members into a combat role they were not expecting. That in turn, prompted the bickering over troop commitments that now plagues the alliance.
Lynch says NATO's troop commitments are not what ails the mission.
"The mission in Afghanistan is not in jeopardy mainly because NATO members refuse to provide sufficient troops," he says. "The real issue is the transitory and uncertain U.S. military posture in Afghanistan."
More on link
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Article Link
NATO and coalition forces are "stumbling toward failure" in Afghanistan and no amount of military success against the Taliban will bring an end to the war without a fundamental change in political policy, says a provocative article written by a serving U.S. army officer.
Col. Thomas Lynch, contributing in the latest edition of The American Interest, a Washington-based policy journal, says the U.S. and NATO cannot win in Afghanistan without convincing both Afghans and Pakistanis that Western military and economic support is there to stay.
Only a permanent NATO force - of the kind that guaranteed the security of western Europe after the Second World War, and still safeguards the security of South Korea - can bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan, says Lynch in his article titled "Afghan Dilemmas: Staying Power."
Lynch served as special assistant to the U.S. ambassador to Kabul in 2004. For the past four years he was stationed with the U.S. army in Afghanistan, Iraq and Qatar, and is now on a temporary fellowship with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think-tank.
In an e-mail interview with Canwest News Service, Lynch also says Canadian forces should consider leaving Kandahar - handing their hard, counter-insurgency role to the Americans - and taking on a new "stability" mission in the less volatile areas of northern or western Afghanistan.
"I am a longtime fan of Canadian military forces," he says. "I served with them in Europe during the Cold War in my early career, and saw them daily in their NATO-ISAF stability and security duties around Kabul in 2004 and 2005. They are good troops."
Yet, despite his admiration for Canadian soldiers, Lynch says Canada, like most European allies, lacks the equipment and resources - helicopters, close-air support, logistics and "economic support tools" -to take charge of the tough, counter-insurgency work required in southern Afghanistan.
He says the U.S. "miscalculated" when it gave NATO control of the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan in 2006, thinking that peacekeeping and stability work would follow.
Instead, the Taliban insurgency flared up, forcing Canada and other NATO members into a combat role they were not expecting. That in turn, prompted the bickering over troop commitments that now plagues the alliance.
Lynch says NATO's troop commitments are not what ails the mission.
"The mission in Afghanistan is not in jeopardy mainly because NATO members refuse to provide sufficient troops," he says. "The real issue is the transitory and uncertain U.S. military posture in Afghanistan."
More on link
