Afstan: US counterinsurgency thinking

William Arkin of the Washington Post outlines some current thinking: more troops may not be the answer (over the longer term):

Lurking behind the many expressions of disappointment over Defense Secretary Robert Gates's decision to pause troop withdrawals from Iraq is not just politics and concern for the troops but also Afghanistan. For months, Iraq war opponents have been positing the second-class war as more central to the fight against terrorism, and there have been many voices in favor of the magic of a "surge" there to turn things around...

The Iraq versus Afghanistan contest seems all the more fitting given Gates' criticism of NATO allies for not doing more. Last week he called the alliance increasingly "two-tiered" and questioned why some were "ready to fight and die in order to protect people's security and others ... are not."..

But here is the dirty little secret about the war in Afghanistan: the best minds in the Pentagon looking at the problem don't think we need more troops there.

If indeed the war against terrorism is "the long war" that many in the military assert it is, than there is growing recognition that the best way to fight that war is through an "indirect approach."

That's the view of Michael Vickers, assistant secretary of defense for special operations and the senior war on terrorism policy-maker in the Pentagon. Speaking to reporters last week, Vickers said that he didn't "think the answer to Afghanistan is taking forces from Iraq and putting them in Afghanistan." Success in Afghanistan, he said, was only going to come by working "by, with and through" host-nation forces -- rather than "surges" of U.S. troops.

"Insurgencies have to be won by local capacity," Vickers said. He not only thinks that this is the best way to achieve victory in a counterinsurgency, but the only way to garner long-term domestic political support for the mission. Moreover, Vickers says, the Afghans themselves want to win the war themselves.

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway agrees with Vickers that the war against terrorism can only be won "from within." In a presentation before a defense industry conference this week, Conway showcased the much more sophisticated thinking on fighting terrorism -- indirect, soft power, local competence -- that has emerged in the past two years: "It's not a war that we can win," he said. "It is a war that moderates in the region must win over time for us to eventually be successful. It has to be handled from within."

Even though things are going in the opposite direction in Afghanistan in comparison with the relative military success in Iraq, Conway questioned whether another surge was as much a sure thing to turn the tide. First, he said, Marines who are more suited to the expeditionary fight in Afghanistan, and more suited to the terrain, are already increasing their presence in the country. Second, he credited the NATO coalition with making a true difference and also with making the fight better there. Finally, Conway observed that the Taliban were changing their tactic this winter, not going across the Pakistani border to regroup until spring. He didn't say it, but clearly the implication is that Pakistan has had some success in denying the Taliban sanctuary on their soil, a fact that should significantly shift the equation of fighting on the ground.

In the end, Conway echoed Vickers in saying that it was up to the Afghan National Army and Kabul to win the fight. And in keeping with the long war theme, he said, surge or not, he didn't see any short-term solution. Afghanistan is "a fight the nation will continue to see boil for some time," he said.

Sounds rather like the strategy the CF have been following for a while. More here. I wish the government itself (i.e. politicians, ministers) would highlight these developments in some detail.