You are on page 1of 97

THE

PARADIGM AFFIRMATIVES
AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAWAL

PARADIGM

Research

2010-2011

1

If you enjoyed this fine book from PARADIGM RESEARCH, you'll be glad to know that we offer a complete menu of affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, LD & Public Forum research, and much more.

Shop our online store anytime - www.oneparadigm.com Call us for a free catalog toll-free - 800-837-9973

The 2010-2011 Paradigm Affirmatives One - Afghanistan: Accelerated Withdrawal by David Cram Helwich

Copyright © 2010 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:

PARADIGM RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2095 Denton, Texas 76202 Toll-Free 800-837-9973 Fax 940-380-1129 Web /www.oneparadigm.com/ E-mail service@oneparadigm.com

All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a violation of United States and international copyright laws.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW
INDEX

www.oneparadigm.com - 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 EXTENSIONS STATUS QUO EXTENSIONS STATUS QUO: LOSS IS INEVITABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO TIMELINE NOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. WILL STAY IN AFGHANISTAN (GENERAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO: "WITHDRAWAL TIMELINE/JULY 2011" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL SOLVENCY EXTENSIONS WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: DEADLINE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LOCALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OFFSHORE CONTAINMENT/SPECIAL FORCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAKISTAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REGIONALIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TIMETABLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "HUMAN RIGHTS/AFGHAN POPULATION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO: "LEADERSHIP/CREDIBILITY" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "PAKISTAN STABILITY" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "REGIONAL INSTABILITY" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "TALIBAN TAKEOVER" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEADERSHIP ADVANTAGE LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: ECONOMIC OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MILITARY OVERSTRETCH NOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MILITARY OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (DETERRENCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (LEADERSHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAL SOLVES (ECONOMY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAL SOLVES (LEADERSHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STABILITY ADVANTAGE MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: AFGHAN PUBLIC RESENTMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIVILIAN CASUALTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ETHNIC CONFLICT/IMPERIALISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INSURGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAKISTAN DESTABILIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAKISTAN INSTABILITY IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 15 16 17

18 20 21 24 26 27 28 30 31 33 34 35 37

39 41 42 44 46 48 49

50 51 52 53 55 57

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .oneparadigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO: "SAFEHAVEN" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GENERAL . . . . . . . . . 58 59 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 89 90 91 93 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAL SOLVES STABILITY: AFGHANISTAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .com . . . "IRAQ SURGE PROVES" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "TERROR TURNS (GENERAL)" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WITHDRAWAL SOLVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAKISTAN . . . ESCALATION SPURS TERRORISM/RECRUITING . . . . .2 STABILITY ADVANTAGE cont'd MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: CORRUPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOVERNANCE PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY PROVES (SOVIET OCCUPATION) . . . . . . . "PAKISTAN LEVERAGE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WAIT US OUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POLICE STRATEGY SOLVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "AFGHANIZATION/TRAINING SOLVES" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ANSWERS TO: "AFGHANISTAN STABILIZATION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 EXTENSIONS cont'd AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "SECURITY/POPULATION PROTECTION" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NATION-BUILDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COUNTER-INSURGENCY PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY PROVES (VIETNAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "TALIBAN DEFEATABLE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOO SMALL/NOT ENOUGH TROOPS . . . . . TERRORISM ADVANTAGE TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN NOT A THREAT . PAKISTAN IS THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "TALIBAN SUPPORT AL QAEDA" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HISTORY PROVES (GENERAL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "POLITICAL SETTLEMENT" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "DRUG WAR" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "GOVERNMENT REFORMS/ACCOUNTABILITY" . . . . . . . . . . . .

This essay will detail the status of U. ill-feelings among some segments of the Afghan population towards the "occupying powers. Critics isolate a number of flaws with the U. geopolitically significant. critics argue that the Karzai government is so corrupt. is largely unwinnable. occupation of Afghanistan and our ongoing conflict with the Taliban and that conflict's implications for global stability will be central to many affirmative and negative debate strategies on this topic. but they are united in their disdain for the status quo. Most of the Taliban and Al Qaeda soldiers were then driven into the mountainous parts of southern Afghanistan.S. because if it fails to fight the Taliban forces. makes substantial security gains the government will likely never be a in a position to takeover. Third. The critics differ in their rationale for withdrawal (lefties want to call it quits on the American empire. provide security for the population. under the leadership of U. Analysts from both sides rest their case on the claim that the Afghan war and its objectives. International forces have had responsibility for security in Afghanistan since early 2002. which risks destabilizing that far more populous. but because the surge and its resulting military conflicts will result in substantial violence. The United States has been military involved in Afghanistan since October 2001. led by Hamid Karzai. The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has primary security responsibility. Many analysts claim that the U. arguing that the U. Although the Obama administration has pledged begin pulling back from the "surge" in July 2011. and has consolidated control over many isolated areas of the country. policies in Afghanistan are driving Taliban forces into Pakistan. the presence of safehavens in Pakistan.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW INTRODUCTION www. most observers and administration insiders concede that this "withdrawal deadline" is largely meaningless in policy terms.S. which critics claim is far smaller than is needed to pacify a nation as large and diverse as Afghanistan. the first approved in the spring of 2009 and a second "surge" begun in December 2009. drawdown starting in July 2011 is a pipedream. the British Empire. Historically-minded advocates also claim that Afghanistan has been at best a weak state throughout its history. who is in control of all coalition forces in Afghanistan. and these forces seized the capital city of Kabul on November 13. when it launched air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. although the fairness of the elections has been strongly disputed. and only serves to destabilize both Afghanistan and the surrounding region. particularly in southern Afghanistan.S. Obama detractors claim that the counter-insurgency doctrine that undergirds the current policy will not stabilize Afghanistan. These strikes were then followed by ground forces and open support for Afghanistan's rebel Northern Alliance. was originally appointed and then elected. . policy in Afghanistan and the rationale for a planned withdrawal. and that the United States would be far better off if it were to cut its losses and withdraw as rapidly as possible. Some of the most damning criticisms center on the size of the U. where most of them dispersed. and it is folly to believe that the U. neocons want to preserve it). and a rapid training of Afghanistan's national police force and army in an effort to provide breathing room to both stabilize the government and allow the eventual turnover of security operations to the Afghan government.S. eventually turning the fight against the Taliban over to the Afghan central government. including resentment towards the central government (particularly among Pashtuns). The Taliban resurgence threatens to overthrow Karzai's government The Obama administration has responded to this deteriorating security situation by committing nearly 50.S. with a growing emphasis on training local Afghan police and military forces. A new civilian government. is in a position where it cannot win.S. as laid out by the Obama administration. and nuclear-armed state." and the U. 2001.000 additional U. and acknowledge that the U.S.com . and the Soviet Union.S. which it blamed for the attacks against the World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11. and their agreement that withdrawal cannot possibly make things any worse.S. they will slowly take over the countryside. can establish a capable central government that can adequately provide security throughout the country. Army General Stanley McChrystal. Critics also maintain that the counter-insurgency strategy will only turn the population against the U. should withdraw its combat forces within the near term.oneparadigm. and did not defeat them.S. The initial invasion only dispersed the Taliban and Al Qaeda.S. This argument is the basis for the claim by many analysts that a U. property damage. The new Obama initiative is designed to gain control of Afghanistan's cities. The Taliban has been slowing regaining strength since it re-launched small scale military operations in 2003. does engage in combat.'s occupation strategy. First. Although there are a number of other claims outlined in the 1AC and extension evidence. will likely have combat forces in Afghanistan for many years under the current plan A growing number of policy analysts on both the right and the left argue that the new McChrystal/Obama counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan is doomed to failure. its control of large segments of the highly lucrative opium poppy trade. and civilian casualties.3 Afghanistan has been described as "Obama's War. and Karzai government. The affirmative case in this book takes a "go big" approach to Afghanistan. and the military and police forces so compromised by Taliban sympathizers. while if the U. the resulting damage will only encourage nonpartisans to turn against the United States and Karzai. describing Afghanistan as a "Graveyard of Empires" whose terrain and complex interethnic relationships and conflicts defeated Alexander the Great.S." and the inability of the government to deliver on basic security and economic promises. not only because occupying forces become increasingly odious to the occupied. The Taliban regrouped in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. 2001. Second. the tacit support of many members of Pakistan's intelligence services. many point to history.S. including an international outcry over the most recent Presidential election.'s military footprint. forces in two waves. the only other criticism that you should be aware of at the moment is that U. that even if the U. The training effort is part of Obama's commitment to "Afghanize" the conflict. The Taliban's resurgence under the leadership of Mullah Omar has been linked to a number of factors.S.

totaling tens of billions of dollars annually and perhaps reaching a trillion dollars before the mission is done. unless you are very fast or take full advantage of a highlighter. so you should be able to prove a pretty substantial solvency deficit against counterplans that do not result in total withdrawal. which would result in a nuclear exchange large enough to cause a worldwide nuclear winter.S. and undermining recruiting efforts to the point that the military has been forced to lower its entry standards for new recruits.oneparadigm.consultation and agent counterplans. the advantage argues.S. to insist on an 18 month withdrawal deadline. meaning you then only need to focus on why a complete withdrawal is necessary. although it is long enough that we think it unlikely that you will be able to read all three in a single round. increase security in Afghanistan. India. The case also includes three advantages. the U. There is some interesting evidence citing government sources which claims that Al Qaeda only has a minimal presence in Afghanistan. The affirmative case calls upon the U. place pressure on the Pakistani government to reign in its own Taliban and their supporters within Pakistan's internal security apparatus. will allow the U. This advantage may be more useful as defense against the likely "Terrorism DAs" that many negative teams will run. The second "stability" advantage leverages many of the "escalation bad" claims explained above. since it is easy to prove that spiraling conflicts from a radicalized Pakistan and a collapse of American power would make any potential negative disad inevitable. and Russia) to push for a negotiated settlement.S. and a dollar decline that will risk a global depression. continues to overstretch its military. and that a loss in Afghanistan is inevitable.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. a war would likely break out with India. Best of luck. with continual deployments wearing down personnel. This advantage argues that pursuit of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is misguided and prevents us from putting our resources and energies into missions that are more likely to decrease the threat of terrorism. The evidence saying that a residual U. risks bankrupting the U. .'s military commitment to Afghanistan is breaking our ground forces. and includes evidence claiming both that the U. ruining equipment. will force the Karzai government to come to terms with more moderate elements of the Taliban. The first advantage is a "leadership" argument. and a variety of regional and relations-based disadvantages. the U. combat presence (and bases) undermine a regional solution and prevent reconciliation between the central government and moderate Taliban is quite good. There is very strong evidence that a withdrawal deadline. arguing that a withdrawal is necessary to prevent a wider civil war in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Pakistani government. and pave the way for many affirmative victories. economy and dollar. Counterplans that do result in complete withdrawal are not competitive :) This is a good case.S. and provide the U. the negative will be forced to counterplan or lose to some potentially very persuasive "try or die" 2ARs. Negatives will have a wide array of options -. and that the Taliban would be very unlikely to cooperate with Al Qaeda even if it were to defeat the Karzai government. There is very good evidence that a withdrawal would ease pressure on the Pakistani government.'s current policy calls for a relatively open-ended military commitment and that the plan will result in a negotiated settlement similar to that outlined in the previous paragraph.com . risking an investment pullout. Counterplans limit negative net benefit (disad) options substantially. If this were to occur. and generally promote stability throughout South and Central Asia. If the U.S. coupled with a number of non-military stabilization strategies. economy by creating huge budget deficits and a burgeoning national debt. higher interest rates. The 1AC solvency evidence also argues that even if these negotiations fail. The key to defeating these arguments is to be able to defend that that status quo is unsustainable. You will have to do updates as the summer passes. with the leverage it needs to force necessary reforms on the Karzai government. because the situation on the ground is likely to change." may not be necessary for the 1AC. If you prove this.4 A withdrawal.S. The advantage also argues that the economic cost of the occupation. condition counterplans. "terrorism. Iran. Doing so will give you a leg up on your opponents. Obama's critics claim.S. A high debt will undermine confidence in the U. with predictable consequences. encourage regional states (such as China. Initially. and it makes two major claims. it risks a decline as a global power. to remove its forces within 18 months and leave Afghanistan and its people in far better condition than they are today. will still be able to use conventional strike assets and special forces to prevent Taliban and Al Qaeda actors within Afghanistan from threatening vital American interests. The third advantage.S.S.S.

org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. that "taken together. 3-10-10. it is a decision to turn over to the Afghans some of the responsibility where they are ready to accept that responsibility.. PROVE THAT WE ARE IN AFGHANISTAN FOR THE LONG HAUL Mark Mardell. www. "No Afghanistan Withdrawal in 2011. we will execute this transition responsibly. who has played a key part in designing the new Afghanistan and Pakistan strategy.globalresearch. shape or form" would the US withdraw from Afghanistan in 2011. sweetening the pill of the troop increase. Just as we have done in Iraq. So there is no contradiction. He said "these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS COMMITTED TO A MILITARY SOLUTION IN AFGHANISTAN -. And he told me that wasn't so. shape or form is the United States leaving Afghanistan in 2011. President Obama for the first time put a date on the beginning of the end of the United States presence in Afghanistan. Just as we have done in Iraq.ca/index. B. fellow." I put it to him that that wasn't the way the speech had been seen in the region.com . FUNDING AND ENFORCEMENT THROUGH NORMAL MEANS ." While it was a necessary political message to those Americans who are doubtful about this war. has been trying to clear up some confusion about the exit strategy. and reboot his tactics if the war worsens by the summer of 2011.S.5 OBSERVATION ONE: THE STATUS QUO A. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. attending all 10 meetings between the president and his top advisers at which the strategy was discussed. and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.EVEN IF A DRAWDOWN STARTS IN JULY 2011. was not walking away from the country. he inserted that phrase to give himself wiggle room to revise. INCLUDING THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR. or for some other unanticipated contingency. Let me start by citing President Obama's exact words on his much-publicized July 2011 deadline for American forces to start leaving Afghanistan. it has worried many in the region." TAKING NOTE. Gen James Jones told me that "in no manner.." GLOBAL RESEARCH." Obama made clear in his statement that his deadline marked the beginning of a draw-down from Afghanistan.That will allow us to start pulling some of our forces out. 12-5-09. IT WILL BE SLOW AT BEST AND DETERMINED BY CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND Stephen Schlesinger. amend. he was making clear to the Afghans that the U. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. He did not say he was undertaking a full pullout of U. President Obama's top national security adviser. accessed 3-15-10. This was his response: "Its very important that people in Afghanistan hear this very clearly: this is not a withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan in 2011. he was emphatic that his change in strategy would be dependent on "conditions on the ground. where some have interpreted it starkly as meaning that America will pull out in a year and a half's time.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE www.html. But in no manner. Obama stated at West Point on December 1. taking into account conditions on the ground. http://takingnote.S. He said that "with a relentless application of this new force in 2011 we will be successful in reaching our goals. taking into account conditions on the ground." Quite evidently. if there are still not enough Afghan forces available to protect the government at that time. Gen Jones was deeply involved in designing the new strategy. troops on that date. accessed 4-9-10. we will execute this transition responsibly.php?context=va&aid=16415." PLAN: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONCLUDE AN AGREEMENT WITH AFGHANISTAN'S GOVERNMENT THAT REQUIRES A WITHDRAWAL OF ALL AMERICAN REGULAR COMBAT FORCES WITHIN A TIMETABLE OF NO MORE THAN EIGHTEEN MONTHS. 2009. Century Foundation. STATEMENTS FROM KEY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. In doing this. Furthermore.oneparadigm. In his speech on Tuesday. these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July 2011.tcf.

The overwhelming likelihood is that as the U.S. so at the very least the time for a non-military solution is now.S. as well as trial and error. the U. isn't being decided in Kabul. even the U. the Taliban's raison d'etre inside Afghanistan would be greatly weakened. Reports in the British press of past peace talks have indicated that Taliban leaders accept the legitimacy of that U. U. it would go a very long way toward undermining the Taliban.IT WILL SPUR A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT THAT IS THE BEST CHANCE WE HAVE FOR STABILIZING THE SITUATION Robert Naiman. government has ignored these demands.S.S.zcommunications. President Karzai asked for an agreement governing the conduct of foreign forces and said there should be negotiations with top insurgent leaders. Iran. WITHDRAWAL WILL UNDERMINE THE TALIBAN. In other words. Since the majority of Americans don't support the war. we can choose to repeat a failed experiment with predictably negative results by extending the war in any number of ways. that will be a strong incentive for the formation of such a government: whoever participates will be at the table for negotiations. "A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War. The Afghan government cannot be perceived as legitimate when it doesn't have effective input into key decisions affecting the country's welfare. withdrawal is minuscule. Some say such important decisions can't be made according to the vagaries of public opinion polls.S. it will do so gradually. then he is "reconcilable" to the interests of the majority of Americans. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. We should start negotiations now. THE PLAN SOLVES -. As for the Taliban. The United States should withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan through a public timetable. India. to help rebuild Afghanistan for ordinary Afghans. government publicly admits that the Pakistani government's own agencies have long supported the renegade army as a tool for national and regional stability. These measures are necessary but may not guarantee stability for Afghanistan. help the Afghan people take back their country.org/znet/viewArticle/23057. moves towards withdrawing its troops. prosecution of the war should not continue. It will take a similar amount of time and complexity. and U. Kai Eide. But the American public is the highest judge on this question. whether and with whom there should be negotiations. President Karzai has said he would invite the Taliban to a loya jirga. A new loya jirga could establish a new national unity government including leaders representative of Afghanistan's various insurgencies." ZNET. undermine the fundamentalist misogynist criminals.N. the sooner they can be concluded. Or we can implement the complex. and China to address the Pakistani government's fears of a hostile regime in Afghanistan. 2009. they must believe it is not making them safer. The probability of a "precipitous" U.S. http://www. Still the current occupation only guarantees instability. Just Foreign Policy. But more war is not likely to significantly affect the fundamental outlines of an eventual agreement. November 4. November/December 2009. The U. as it is doing in Iraq.S." But the United States has one overriding legitimate national security interest in Afghanistan: that it not be a base for organizing attacks against the United States. officials have said Mullah Omar is "irreconcilable. The proposition that there will eventually be negotiations with insurgents in Afghanistan has been accepted by U. Since the American people oppose the war. If Mullah Omar will sign and enforce an agreement that Afghanistan will not be a base for organizing attacks on the United States. Admiral Mullen says we can't do so now because we'd be bargaining from a position of weakness. INCREASE PROSPECTS FOR A REGIONALIZED SOLUTION Sonali Kolhatkar. accessed 3-4-10. If the United States signals willingness to negotiate a withdrawal timetable with a national unity government. official for Afghanistan. Russia. constructive measures that could potentially help stabilize Afghanistan. The idea of a broad national reconciliation process in Afghanistan that includes tribes backing the Taliban and other insurgents has long been advocated by the top U. journalist and co-director.html. Once the public turned against the Iraq war.6 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd OBSERVATION TWO: SOLVENCY A. But the most important decisions should be decided democratically. The sooner negotiations begin.com . The U. B. If the United States were to take the lead in regional talks between Pakistan. this is a straw argument. These are complex demands to make of the Obama administration.S. Some argue against a "precipitous" withdrawal.cato. or grand tribal council. and by extension make Americans safer. or that whatever contribution the war is making to their safety is too small to justify the human and financial costs. accessed 4-9-10. national coordinator. .S. to restart stalled peace talks. public opinion is not volatile on questions of war and peace. Specifics should be negotiated with the Afghan government and other partners.oneparadigm. Some say the war is making Americans safer.S. . But it has taken a complex set of destructive American policies and many years to destroy Afghanistan. and undermine the conditions for violence. interest. it never turned back. With the U. Whether and how the war should continue. In practice. public does not support the war in Afghanistan.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. troops gone. leaders. www.S.Afghan Women's Mission.

the most important geopolitical impact of a US/NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan would be the perception of a western (read: American) defeat.S. Yet even in the worst case .newsweek.nearly the size of Texas -. Afghanistan will become a sinkhole consuming resources neither the U. accessed 4-8-10. fixing Afghanistan would drain it altogether. History and International Relations. Afghanistan is a much bigger country -. but the countries neighboring and near Afghanistan: the Central Asian republics. International Relations and Security Network. the United States and its allies are using the wrong means to vigorously pursue the wrong mission.just ask the British or the Soviets. accessed 4-9-10. Katz. http://www.and perhaps even Pakistan and Iran. military nor the U." ISN SECURITY WATCH.will turn Operation Enduring Freedom into Operation Enduring Obligation. Yet the challenges of pacifying Afghanistan dwarf those posed by Iraq. Persisting on the present course -.S.7 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd C. But not withdrawing will also have negative consequences if the US/NATO intervention becomes even less popular in Afghanistan and the West than it is now. ADVANTAGE ONE: LEADERSHIP A. "Winning in Afghanistan.CONTINUED OCCUPATION WILL ONLY DRAIN AMERICAN POWER Andrew J.com . India . Far more than what it might add to al-Qaida's capabilities. Afghans produce almost nothing the world wants. The operation was launched with expectations of a quick. In Iraq. then. Boston University. AFGHANISTAN IS A WAR WE CANNOT WIN -. Even if a withdrawal from Afghanistan results in the worst case scenario its opponents predict. Russia. the government in Kabul lags well behind Baghdad -. In terms of effectiveness and legitimacy.S. 9-9-09." NEWSWEEK. Afghanistan possesses almost none of the prerequisites of modernity. TO CONTAIN ANY CONFLICT Mark N. barely a third of Iraq's. The allied campaign in Afghanistan is now entering its eighth year. Installing a new one to take its place has turned out to be infinitely harder. Granted. Just as maintaining or increasing US/NATO military involvement in Afghanistan will not necessarily lead to victory. "Assessing an Afghanistan Withdrawal. China. could well be to make these neighboring and nearby governments feel more vulnerable. 12-31-08. WITHDRAWAL WILL SPUR NEIGHBORING STATES TO INCREASE COOP WITH THE U. unlike Iraq. In Afghanistan today. success in overthrowing the Taliban seemed to suggest this lesson no longer applied. its literacy rate. The real problem is that Washington has misunderstood the nature of the challenge Afghanistan poses and misread America's interests there. Bacevich.oneparadigm. Professor.as both John McCain and Barack Obama have promised to do -. U. That quickly proved an illusion. George Mason University.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. decisive victory but has failed to accomplish that objective.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=105801. One of history's enduring lessons is that Afghans don't appreciate it when outsiders tell them how to govern their affairs -. withdrawal will not necessarily lead to defeat there.com/id/177374. toppling the old order was easy.not exactly a lofty standard. power. IN THE WORST CASE.and has a larger population that's just as fractious. and thus more willing to increase or initiate cooperation with the US and NATO to contain al-Qaida and the Taliban within Afghanistan.the most negative geopolitical effects are more likely to be felt not by the US and Europe (which al-Qaida can attack without a base in Afghanistan since it already has bases elsewhere). Apart from opium. Moreover. While liberating Iraq may have seriously reduced the reservoir of U.the Taliban return to power and once again allow carte blanche to al-Qaida . Yet that doesn't explain the lack of progress. this is highly likely to be mitigated by non-Pashtuns inside Afghanistan or the governments of neighboring and nearby countries acquiring the incentive to increase (or in some cases. Professor. the diversion of resources to the misguided war in Iraq has forced commanders in Afghanistan to make do with less. government can afford to waste. http://www. Withdrawal will surely have some negative consequences. is 28 percent.S. initiate) security cooperation with the US and NATO against the common threat. The impact of a US/NATO withdrawal. . This is not to say that the US and NATO will be better off after a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan or a partial one from the south.S. at least to Americans.isn.ethz. for example. Government and Politics.

it was easier to control one million people than to physically kill one million people. DEVALUING OUR CURRENCY William Polk. 2009. Some funds (led by Kuwait) are considering transferring from the dollar to a basket of currencies while others (including South Korea) have stopped buying Treasury notes. Under the third option.S. The fact of the matter is that without an American recovery there will be no global recovery.50.before the introduction of more troops -. their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low. 11-23-09. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. STAYING IN AFGHANISTAN WILL END UP COSTING US TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Second. also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might is greater than ever. including a global nuclear exchange.80 to $1. First. particularly by societies that are culturally alien even if technologically superior. The degradation of our currency is one effect of such an outlay: during the period of the Iraq war.S. But there could be an American recovery without the recovery of some major economies. "Losing the Moment.democracy. To put it bluntly: in earlier times.8 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd B. the dollar vis-a-vis the Euro has fallen from . And currency traders are betting on a further fall. it is too costly to undertake colonial wars. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. a further fall calls into question our ability to borrow at all. $5 billion dollars a year for the period the military and their hawkish civilian advisers propose. free markets. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. THE IMPACT IS NUCLEAR WAR Zalmay Khalilzad.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. we might consider offering (hopefully with matching funds from others). in these activities.in the foreseeable future no state or combination of states can replace the linchpin role America plays in the international system. COLLAPSE OF AMERICAN POWER RISKS GLOBAL CHAOS Zbignew Brzezinski.we are "burning" as venture capitalists say. President." WASHINGTON QUARTERLY. What will this cost? If we participate. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan. we are otherwise harming our economy so that over a 5 to 10 year period of our current policy the real costs we would incur would probably amount to between $3 to $6 trillion. today. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. truly vital. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. former Professor of History. Finally. Spring 1995. pp. This is money we don't have and will have to borrow from overseas. the crisis of American leadership could in fact become the crisis of global stability. On balance. So what will spending that amount of money save us? At our current level of activity -. Yet -. As a result.despite the Schadenfreude at America's financial travails evident in some capitals during the early stages of the current crisis -. And even that figure will surely rise in the years to come.html. to America's detriment." HISTORY NEWS NETWORK. Those who have opposed expanding health care because of the costs should note that the venture in Afghanistan will be more expensive with no compensating benefit. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision.oneparadigm. D. ten years. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. say. Next year. On top of that. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. C.us/articles/120371. such as nuclear proliferation. in the current post-colonial era. But these major world powers. It follows from the foregoing that the monumental task in foreign affairs for the newly elected President of the United States (beyond coping with the immediate financial crisis) is to regain global legitimacy for America by spearheading a collective effort for a more inclusive system of global management. accessed 4-19-10. The fall so far means that sovereign funds (notably Japan and China) that have lent us money have lost heavily. our direct costs will probably rise to at least $100 billion. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people. U. ASP. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. 85 n. http://hnn. That is a reality some recent American policy-makers failed to assimilate. If we attempt to make up our shortfall by printing money. "Major Foreign Policy Challenges for the Next U. inflation is inevitable and will saddle our grandchildren with our debts. U. That reality underlies the proposition that at this stage of history there is no international alternative to a central American role. as we should in our own interest as well as for moral reasons. University of Chicago.S. RAND analyst.53-60. indeed perhaps. and low-level conflicts. In short." INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS v.com . In this dynamically changing world context. the only real alternative to a constructive American world role is global chaos. our saving would be immense. and the rule of law. about $60 billion a year. In fact. That insight bears directly on the use of force. new and old. . by getting out. former National Security Advisor. So the Congressionally allocated funds in the coming few years under even the most modest form of "staying the course" would amount to a minimum of $600 billion and more likely to much more. That would amount to roughly $50 billion over a decade. 1.

com/stories/2008/10/29/opinion/main4555821.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HC24Dj01. www.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-09. THIS RISKS A DEPRESSION Julian Delasantellis. www. The Great Depression.com . the withdrawal of all U. For the US. 2-9-09. Members of Congress splintered and voted against the bill before voting for it several days later. More likely there would be a sharp overshoot in the dollar-selling. the most destructive war in the history of the planet.S. IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL DECREASES TERRORISM AND BOOSTS THE ECONOMY BY ADDRESSING DEFICIT PROBLEMS Jacob G.atimes.S. government to dealing with the threat of terrorism here at home and would put a stop to what it has been doing to perpetually fuel the threat of terrorism -. International Business. placing our policy fundamentals in even greater jeopardy. either. G. another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale. Worldwide.S. other countries could be forced into panic selling of their huge dollar reserves. But after the elections." Future of Freedom Foundation. "Don't Turn Panic into Depression. "Immediately Withdraw from Afghanistan Too. the great run of US prosperity would be over.not just for the sake of our prosperity. this would mean a sharp rise in the prices of everything it imports. Hornberger.S. especially crude oil.html. accessed 5-10-09. accessed 4-09-10. showing a lack of conviction that did nothing to reassure markets. F. "US Living on Borrowed Time . Economic Analyst.oneparadigm. higher taxes. It's important that we avoid all these policy errors ." NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE. dropping bombs on wedding parties and others unconnected to terrorism in Afghanistan. If somebody starts selling his dollar reserves. PROLONGED ECONOMIC MALAISE RISKS NUCLEAR WARS Phil Kerpen. even if it's only a portion of his dollar portfolio. accessed 4-9-10. but whether they would be able to absorb the amount of selling that could emerge from portfolio adjustments this large is a very open question. 10-29-08. Washington already has stoked the flames of the financial panic.shtml. Finally. That would mean inflation.fff.." ASIA TIMES. along with the global contractionary effects of US economic growth suddenly stopping or going into reverse. Even Alan Greenspan is questioning free markets today. Either way. with the Federal Reserve raising interest rates to contain it. troops from Afghanistan (and Iraq) would have the additional bonus of strengthening the U. The stakes couldn't be any higher.g. troops from Afghanistan would limit the U. www. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair. President. all eyes will turn to the new president and Congress in search of reassurance that the fundamentals of our free economy will be supported. Professor.cbsnews. Given that out-of-control federal spending is threatening our nation with bankruptcy and ruin. leading to a perhaps 20-30% decline in dollar values within a very short time. and more restrictive labor markets. To be sure. didn't end until the advent of World War II. The foreign-exchange markets are the biggest and most liquid in the world.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.asp.9 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd E. economy by immediately reducing federal borrowing and expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars.And Money. but for our survival. 3-24-06. An immediate withdrawal of all U.e. or maybe the economy would bypass the intermediate inflationary phase and head straight into deep recession or depression. a major reduction in federal spending would be a good thing. The president and the Treasury secretary did the policy equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater when they insisted that Congress immediately pass a bad bailout bill or face financial Armageddon. after all. That will require the shelving of any talk of trade protectionism. the effect of an almost instantaneous 20% haircut in the value of the world's financial reserves would be no picnic. .

while America has a vital interest in ensuring Pakistan does not become weakened. A recent poll conducted by Gallup Pakistan for Al-Jazeera found that a whopping 59 percent believed the U. First. Airstrikes from unmanned drones are strengthening the very jihadist forces America seeks to defeat by allowing militants to exploit the popular resentment felt from the accidental killing of innocents." the U. A more aggressive policy by the U. Even more important. allegiances often shift with the flow of cash. their regional backyard. www. he apparently paid Afghans to let him escape. special envoy for the region. it would likely be because U. detonators. and allied forces should be withdrawn from Afghanistan.THE PLAN IS THE BEST WAY FOR DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM Ivan Eland. the danger of militants seizing Pakistan's nuclear weapons remains highly unlikely. In that part of the world. accessed 4-9-10. is to hit the Taliban's safe havens to impede the group's cross-border attacks on Afghanistan. "Myth v. and the country's warheads. when bin Laden was on the run from U. On August 12. told an audience at the Center for American Progress that the porous border and its surrounding areas serve as a fertile recruiting ground for al Qaeda.asp?id=2322. leaving only a small contingent of clandestine Special Forces and Predators to take advantage of any window of opportunity. 9-4-09. but the group regularly violates its principles to profitably consort with Afghanistan's drug lords. but a desire for a sound economy and basic security. Rising Islamic radicalism in Pakistan is very dangerous. Notice the absence of the word "Taliban" from the last sentence. senior fellow and Director. . "The U. For all of Washington's talk of the "Af-Pak" border. discontinuing policies that add more fuel to violent religious radicalism should be the first order of business.php?pub_id=10509. Myth # 2: We Must Remain in the Region to Protect Pakistan . most of the U. average militants have no viable means of taking over a country of 172 million people. Should Worry About Bin Laden. Fact: Afghanistan. the U.independent. Finally.oneparadigm.S. and Pakistani military leaders are committed to securing "strategic depth" in Afghanistan. incursions on the ground. The dominant political force within Pakistan is not radical fundamentalist Islam.S. not Afghanistan.S.S.S. Yet the United States has to worry about the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan only because its non-Muslim occupation of a Muslim land is causing it. FORCE LEVELS ONLY ENFLAME TALIBAN INFLUENCE IN AFGHANISTAN -.S. let's not create any more threats. Pakistan has an elaborate command and control system in place that complies with strict Western standards. unmanned drones "a recruiting windfall for the Pakistani Taliban.10 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd ADVANTAGE TWO: STABILITY A. if the country were to be taken over by al Qaeda sympathizers. government and the American public have lost sight of the fact that the Taliban did not attack the United States on 9/11. and the United States could simply pay any Taliban remnants not to fight." The main reason for the stepped up U. is likely to make the Taliban even more wildly popular in both places. So why can't the U. when combined with the continued occupation of Afghanistan. and most importantly.S. Pakistan's fear of India has existed for decades. and they do so to prevent India from establishing influence there and encircling Pakistan. U." The Independent Institute.S. OCCUPATION IS ACTUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DESTABILIZING PAKISTAN Malou Innocent. originally helped create al Qaeda. because the country possesses nuclear weapons. In late 2001 after 9/11. One US military official. keeping its "eyes on the prize. http://www. To deflate the Taliban ascendancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. policymakers have underestimated how greatly leaders in Islamabad fear the rise of pro-India government in Kabul. Cato Institute. Even Barack Obama and the Democrats declare that "we cannot lose Afghanistan. Center on Peace & Liberty. Richard Holbrooke. Foreign Policy analyst. The U. B. Not the Taliban.com .S.org/newsroom/article.S. the Taliban is too dedicated in its radical Islamic beliefs to turn over bin Laden. effort should be reoriented to the same policy that has reduced violence in Iraq: paying off your enemies not to fight you. Removing the non-Muslim occupation from Muslim soil would likely take the fire out of the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. called airstrikes from U. The U.S. Third.S." HUFFINGTON POST. forces.cato. accessed 3-4-10. Second. 9-22-08.S. speaking on the condition of anonymity. India inspires a sense of profound insecurity in Pakistan. and missiles are not stored fully-assembled. just pay whatever it takes to bring him in? Tell the Taliban to name their price.S. should bin Laden or any other leadership targets be located.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www." Citizens living outside the ungoverned tribal areas also detest drones. If America's interests lie in ensuring the virus of anti-American radicalism does not infect the rest of the region.The "Pakistan-is-imploding" meme that coursed through the Beltway like wildfire last spring was excessively alarmist. However. was the greatest threat to Pakistan. Some say that no matter how high the reward. but are scattered and physically separated throughout the country.org/pub_display.S. and the concomitant increase in strikes by Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles into Pakistan. should offer whatever the Taliban in Pakistan wants to turn over bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership. the vast majority of U. its America's own policies that are pushing the conflict over the border and destabilizing the nuclear-armed country. In fact. in Pakistan. eighty percent of Pakistan's military still sits on the border with India.S. policies in both Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan are being exploited by militants to undermine public support for the government in Islamabad. ELEVATED U. bin Laden and al Qaeda did.

S. with severe shortages in many places.3 degrees Fahrenheit for several years and precipitation to drop by one-tenth. the researchers said. and a worldwide panic could bring the global agricultural trading system to a halt. but the potential for nuclear war. Center for Defense Information. Nothing we do will compel 125 million Muslims in Pakistan to make common cause with a United States in league with the two states that are unambiguously anti-Muslim: Israel and India.com/story. nuclear theft. it will also give Russia. foreign aid to Pakistan can be described as a policy whereby poor people in the United States have their money sent to rich people in Pakistan." DEFENSE NEWS. Winds would blow the material around the world. There are no guarantees that a conventional conflict between India and Pakistan will stay conventional. Although some analysts have suggested a nuclear exchange would involve fewer weapons. A Pakistan teetering on the brink of collapse is likely to act in unpredictable ways toward neighboring states and non-state actors alike. Pakistan's nuclear deterrent becomes increasingly important. "Regional Nuclear War Could Devastate World Population. a robust conventional response capability that reduces the potential for nuclear use. Associate Vice President. Center for Strategic and International Studies. an analyst with the Naval Postgraduate School. in World War II. Pakistan's relations with India. accessed 4-18-10.11 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd C." wrote Alan Robock. www.php?i=4106190. The nuclear experts who study Pakistan tend to downplay the nuclear threat. The reduction in sunlight would cause temperatures to drop by 2. To date.org/files/20080928-Cohen-Pakistan2020. www. "Pakistan 2020: The Policy Imperative of Pakistani Demographics. Assuming that each of the 100 bombs would burn an area equivalent to that seen at Hiroshima. . it's time for President Obama to reverse course and leave Afghanistan." 3-16-10. a politically moderate and generally pro-Western government and military leadership -. March 4). accessed 4-10-10. India's growing presence in Afghanistan has fueled long-held fears in Islamabad of strategic encirclement. The nuclear winter scenario assumes that cities and industrial zones in each nation would be hit by 50 bombs the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.globalsecuritynewswire. accessed 4-10-10. The climate changes and other environmental effects of the nuclear war would have a devastating affect on crop yields unless farmers prepared for such an occurrence in advance." Pakistan's Nuclear Future: Reigning in the Risks.pdf. disrupting global agriculture and leading to the starvation of around 1 billion people. "It's Time for the U. as well as Iraq. Leaving Afghanistan will not only relieve the explosive pressure inside Pakistan and give Islamabad a chance to restore order. according to the article. researchers determined that the weapons used against Pakistan would generate 3 million metric tons of smoke and the bombs dropped on India would produce 4 million metric tons of smoke. and Owen Brian Toon. for instance. Around 1 billion people worldwide who now live on marginal food supplies would be directly threatened with starvation by a nuclear war between India and Pakistan or between other regional nuclear powers. have thawed since the 1999 Kargil War. according to Peter Lavoy. Japan. THE WAR WILL ESCALATE AND CAUSE A NUCLEAR WINTER GLOBAL SECURITY NEWSWIRE. head of the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Department at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Iran and India time to ponder what they will do in our absence. might attempt to fire all of its nuclear weapons in case India's conventional forces overtake the country's military sites.php. 2008. E. U. http://www.S. The observed effects of volcano eruptions.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. but India continues to dominate the thinking of Pakistani national security planners. he nuclear blasts and subsequent blazes and radiation could kill more than 20 million people in India and Pakistan.the military's cohesion and professionalism. The greater the stresses endured by the Pakistani state. Computer modeling suggests a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would block out the sun with large amounts of airborne debris.npec-web. "A nuclear war could trigger declines in yield nearly everywhere at once.oneparadigm. U. All three have far more at stake in the region than the United States does. Frankly. researchers who created the computer models contended that the panic from an initial nuclear exchange could cause a conflict to quickly escalate. PAKISTAN INSTABILITY RISKS A NUCLEAR WAR WITH INDIA Craig Cohen. Shipping foreign aid to Pakistan is hopeless. Pakistan's safeguards against these nuclear risks -. Scientific American reported in its January issue (see GSN. especially. WITHDRAWAL PROVIDES A SAFETY VALVE FOR PAKISTAN'S GOVERNMENT TO RESTORE INTERNAL ORDER Douglas Macgregor. the less stable relations with India are likely to be. to Leave Afghanistan. a climatology professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey.S. covering the atmosphere over all continents within two weeks. As Pakistan's conventional deterrent declines relative to India's heightened defense spending.com .all could erode or disappear in the years ahead as demographic pressures rise and the fabric of Pakistan's state and society come under additional strain. Pakistan. analyst. Report Warns. D. established command and control procedures.org/gsn/nw_20100315_4193. smoke from forest fires and other events support the findings of the computer modeling. or nuclear accident will increase in Pakistan as domestic instability increases.defensenews. Research and Programs. 5-25-09.

com . speaking tour last month made it clear that it's hard to imagine things getting worse if the U. The current debate about troop increases lacks a focused rationale. Pena. Al Qaeda is not solely located in Afghanistan. The Independent Institute. ADVANTAGE THREE: TERRORISM A. we are overlooking more effective policies and leading America into a strategically compromised situation. various countries in Europe and the United States. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point. does pull out immediately. November 4. LEAVING CAN ONLY IMPROVE THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND IN AFGHANISTAN -. making it easier to recruit insurgents and target the occupier.harvard.S.nationalinterest. . "A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War. and potentially reduce the legitimacy of the warlords and the motives driving the Taliban. This is both wrong and counterproductive. troops will unleash another bloody civil war where Afghan women and men will be at the mercy of the Taliban and warlords.php?page=article&id=1919.S.S. the first thing we Americans can control most directly is to end our occupation immediately.zcommunications. http://www. even if that government is not able to completely eradicate the group. it is treated as a panacea for even global terrorism. http://www. The presence of U. it is only to say that we need to understand why it happened. The larger problem with both strategies is that they both involve continued U. Those who make the case that withdrawing U. By empowering war criminals and protecting a corrupt government that has forgiven the crimes of all sides including the Taliban. This logic ignores the fact that we have nurtured and created the very fundamentalist violence that targets Afghans as explained above. http://hir.it's being carried out by the United States. 2001. Such a robust strategy would likely be led by an expanded intelligence and Special Forces community. Our strategy in Afghanistan must learn from -. accessed 3-4-10. 1-5-10.org/Article. Yemen.WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONFLICT BY CODDLING A CORRUPT. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Afghan Women's Mission.aspx?id=22432. Egypt. accessed 4-8-10. all we have done is complicate a war that was on-going. journalist and co-director. Instead of subjecting Afghans to the three oppressive forces of a stronger Taliban.org/znet/viewArticle/23057. Al Qaeda and bin Laden should be the first priority of President Obama's decision-making process. accessed 3-4-10. a corrupt and criminal government.our past mistakes. former Acting Executive Director. even if it results in short-term tactical success.S.S. America's strategic interest is best served by seeing that the Afghan government not support or grant sanctuary to al Qaeda. Indonesia.S. Such a strategy also needs to recognize that local al-Qaeda threats within Afghanistan are not necessarily the same as the pre-9/11 al-Qaeda threat to the United States. and NATO troops on Afghan soil breeds resentment among both the warlords and the population. As America cannot militarily occupy all the countries where Al Qaeda cells may be hiding. senior fellow." ZNET. "A member of RAWA who goes by the pseudonym Zoya in a U.not repeat -.12 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd F.is a prescription for long-term failure. the Philippines. Al Qaeda affiliates can be found in Pakistan. FOCUS ON DEFEATING THE TALIBAN/AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN TRADES OFF WITH MORE EFFECTIVE ANTI-TERROR STRATEGIES Tyler Moselle. Sudan. Ultimately. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. But it will reduce the oppressive forces at work. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden were the original threats to American national security. and a deadly foreign occupation. This is not to say that America deserved to be attacked. military occupation. counterinsurgency doctrine has been so engrained in the highest echelons of the US national security community. If the goal is to destroy Al Qaeda. The insurgency in Afghanistan and the wider radicalism seeping through Islam is fueled in large part by unnecessary U. G. And occupation -. INEFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT Sonali Kolhatkar. 2009. are raising the exact same justification made for the war in 2001: that it's our moral duty to protect Afghans from fundamentalist violence. This is the same phenomenon that helped trigger al-Qaeda's attacks on the United States on September 11. Al Qaeda is a transnational terrorist movement that recruits and inspires individuals around the world in a decentralized fashion. Unfortunately. This alone won't address the Taliban and Northern Alliance. and that even includes some Taliban leaders. then Obama must create a strategy geared toward capturing or killing individuals and cells in multiple countries." NATIONAL INTEREST. 2009. encroachment in Muslim countries.however large or small -. "Get Out of Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia.oneparadigm." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW. The damage isn't being prevented by the United States -. Insurgency and stability in Afghanistan should be a secondary consideration. THE OCCUPATION IS THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM -. President Obama must create a new strategy that turns away from conventional military force.edu/index. If we stick around we only put ourselves in harm's way.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. November 4. Somalia.WE SHOULD WITHDRAW Charles V. by focusing so intensely on the Taliban in Afghanistan and the attendant troop surge request.

al Qaeda terrorist havens can be disrupted through covert operations and supported by unmanned aerial vehicles. we must keep in mind that the military is wonderful for killing bad guys with disproportionate firepower. "where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed. In a remarkable website on nuclear war. stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack.html. September 14.S. the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even "anti-Semitic" European cities. "World on Fire: Two Scenarios of the Destruction of Human Civilization and Possible Extinction of the Human Race. it would retaliate with the suicidal "Samson option" against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. destroying enemy troop formations. In that case. but not for finding hidden killers. Should we remain in Afghanistan? The answer -. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. accessed 4-18-10. And fourth.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. but whether it constitutes a vital national security interest. Next. taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. would then retaliate against Russia. South Korea. "Afghanistan Is Just Not that Important.MULTIPLE REASONS Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. . Almost every country in Afghanistan's immediate neighborhood can be argued to pose a bigger terrorist threat. First.13 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE cont'd B. Only recently has the debate moved to this question. E. America still does not have a clearly articulated goal. The scalpel of intelligence sharing and close cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies has done more to round up suspected terrorists than the sledgehammer of military force.is clearly no.com/posts/2009/10/16/afghanistan_is_just_not_that_important. Cato Institute. that our departure would produce their return is by no means a certainty and it is a view shared by many in Afghanistan. Furthermore. foreign policy analysts. ScienceDirect. of all. AL QAEDA DOES NOT JUSTIFY OCCUPATION -. many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.MILITARY IS BADLY SUITED FOR COUNTER-TERRORISM Malou Innocent. and defeating al Qaeda -. 2009. Yangin Campus. In Section 1. they are actively sponsored by elements in Pakistan and their fate is really driven from there.is not so much misguided as it is misplaced." FUTURES v. China would probably be involved as well.php?pub_id=10533. C. Russia would retaliate. rural. as thousands. or bombing command centers. troops. if they were to regain control of much of the territory. President Obama should be skeptical of suggestions that the defeat of al Qaeda depends on more and more U. bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years.how to build key institutions and create a legitimate political system -. all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. 2009.foreignpolicy. Because of the Russian "dead hand" system.683-93. FAILURE TO CONSTRAIN TERRORISM RISKS ATTACKS THAT ESCALATE TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR Dennis Ray Morgan. http://www. Carol Moore asks the question "Is Nuclear War Inevitable??"." FOREIGN POLICY. Second. would again harbor al Qaeda.AL QAEDA DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENCE THERE David Rothkopf. First. they've figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange.com . Moore points out what most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. long-term military presence for several reasons. Third. November/December 2009. It can be argued that we don't want the Taliban to come back into power in Afghanistan. Going after al Qaeda does not require a large-scale. http://rothkopf. and impoverished as Afghanistan. pp. First. 10-16-09.S. of nuclear warheads. accessed 4-9-10. As Moore points out. again. In short. for years to come.oneparadigm.cato. would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout. as the war in Afghanistan rages on. likewise. The terror threat has moved elsewhere. The issue is not whether we can but whether we should. it is not clear that the Taliban." it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States"." CATO WHITE PAPER. an oppressive regime in Afghanistan does not necessarily threaten the United States. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. of course. Afterwards. This is why the usual topic of discussion -. whether from terrorists or a nation state. troop increases are likely to incite fierce resistance to foreign forces rather than enhance the prospects of success in a country as large.cato. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT THE MAIN TERROR THREAT -.when stacked against our objective of disrupting. Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have. if not tens of thousands. accessed 3-5-10. No doubt. D. THERE IS NO TERROR-BASED JUSTIFICATION FOR A PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN -. and the U. Americans understand intuitively that the question about Afghanistan is not whether the war is winnable. dismantling. foreign policy analyst.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. 41. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies. National Security Advisor Jim Jones was quoted as saying there may be only 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.org/pub_display. www.

and calls for withdrawal of the bulk of United States combat forces from the country over 18 months. This plan is no more promising in Afghanistan than it was in Vietnam.A veteran United States Army officer who has served in both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars warns in an analysis now circulating in Washington that the counter-insurgency strategy urged by General Stanley A McChrystal is likely to strengthen the Afghan insurgency. 2009. To curtail their losses. Obama's Big Push looks like a military analogue to the basic economic mistake of throwing good money after bad. Karzai will undoubtedly win the run-off.oneparadigm.asp?id=2674. in Afghanistan. will make the difference. His political position. the Americans should get out of Afghanistan immediately. Providing the additional 40. policy makers talk as if they lack the wit to comprehend these elementary facts. Yale University. U. The Afghan government in Kabul has no legitimacy with the majority of the Afghan people. suffered at a time when the American people have a multitude of more urgent needs.in large part to ensure its own internal survival." which American officials are struggling. senior fellow. insists he needs 40. It also has no financial base. A clear-thinking president would steer clear of trying to accomplish the impossible.com/english/?id=35414. accessed 3-4-10." ASIA TIMES. Not 'Big'. "Troop Surge in Afghanistan a Losing Investment. The Independent Institute. www. He is therefore the only one who can even hope to enter into a political arrangement with some or all of the Taliban. or that President Obama does now. It seems unlikely he will get the full number of these troops. 3. It also has no army worthy of the name. Afghans have only been rented for as long as the dollars keep flowing. WASHINGTON . 2. "Many experts in and from Afghanistan warn that our presence over the past eight years has already hardened a meaningful percentage of the population into viewing the United States as an army of occupation which should be opposed and resisted.S. Consider the basic situation. There may well be civil war for a long time. post-election. the Taliban. to meet his implicit deadline. who control half the country and who have grown steadily stronger since the Taliban government was overthrown by a foreign (largely United States) invasion in 2002. even if they arrive right away. The vast sum of money expended. or fast enough. Pakistan.atimes. unsuccessfully. The country and its president are in a situation of perfect lockjaw. It's a pure waste. both the United States and Obama will lose.S. Who will really come to power in Afghanistan at that point is a very open question." SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER. U. represents forgone opportunities forever sacrificed. December 4. 11-1-09. There are many military figures who doubt that he is right in arguing that his 40. General Stanley McChrystal. The more than 800 American servicemen who have already died in Afghanistan cannot be brought back to life.SENDING MORE SOLDIERS WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE Gareth Porter. It doesn't seem very daring to suggest that the United States will have to withdraw from Afghanistan at some point. In a 63-page paper representing his personal views but reflecting conversations with other officers who have served in Afghanistan.WE SHOULD JUST WITHDRAW Robert Higgs. The US military commander. Tails You Lose.000 more troops.org/newsroom/article.000 troops that Gen McChrystal reportedly requested "is almost certain to further exacerbate" that problem.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW STATUS QUO: LOSS IS INEVITABLE www.000 more troops right away.14 1. or it will be too late to win the war in Afghanistan. Senior Research Scholar. IT IS TOO LATE TO DEFEAT THE INSURGENCY -.middle-east-online. THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO -. to cut off.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ17Df03.S. "Afghanistan: Heads You Lose.independent. The major US political ally in the region. Lieutenant Colonel Daniel L Davis argues that it is already too late for US forces to defeat the insurgency. 10-17-09." writes Davis.html. by training and equipping them until they are strong enough to whip the insurgents. Pres. so far with absolutely nothing of genuine worth to show for it.A LOSS IN AFGHANISTAN IS INEVITABLE Immanuel Wallerstein. The war in Afghanistan is a war in which whatever the United States does now. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS NOT WINNABLE -. accessed 4-6-10. www. www. will be very weak. It is faced with a guerilla opposition." MIDDLE EAST ONLINE. accessed 4-18-09. The US government was ready to swallow this because Karzai is the only major politician who is ethnically a Pashtun. There is almost no military or personal security anywhere. the base of the Taliban support." The pro-U. As in other occupied countries. The New York Times reports that the Taliban "are running a sophisticated financial network to pay for their insurgent operations. he warns. is clearly collusive with the Taliban -. The problem is not that the "legitimate" side is not strong enough or trained well enough to defeat the "bad guys. . The United States was embarrassed publicly into recognizing the electoral fraud and was pressured to put pressure on Karzai to accept a run-off second round election. The war in Afghanistan is not winnable in any meaningful sense.com . Hamid Karzai was reelected recently in a manifestly falsified election. authorities declare that they will accomplish their mission by building up "legitimate" government troops and police. "Going 'Deep'.

"We're not talking about an exit strategy or a drop dead deadline. 12-7-09. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. "The Truth About Withdrawal.thinkprogress.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW STATUS QUO: NO TIMELINE NOW www. accessed 4-9-10. the pace of withdrawal will be conditions-based. Congressional attention will soon turn to the Pentagon's requests for $33 billion to fund the current Afghan escalation and $159 billion for Iraq-Afghanistan war funding in fiscal year 2011. 2. Think Progress.thenation. establishing the necessity of the war while also conveying a clear expectation that Afghans will soon take responsibility for their own security. of a gradual troop withdrawal. CURRENT OBAMA POLICY DOES NOT INCLUDE A MEANINGFUL DEADLINE Faiz Shakir et al. Obama has spoken against open-ended funding and pledged to "begin" troop withdrawals from Afghanistan by summer 2011.S.. During his address on Afghanistan policy last week at the U.15 1. "A Withdrawal Plan for Afghanistan. .org/2009/12/pr20091207. to be followed by introduction of the legislation. McGovern also will introduce an updated version of last year's resolution requesting an exit plan from the administration.S. Administration officials clarified President Obama's new Afghanistan policy on the political talk shows yesterday." The Progress Report. troops.oneparadigm. accessed 4-18-10. Jim Jones explained on CNN's State of the Union that the withdrawal date was not a "cliff." but rather a "glide slope. www. not the end. A Congressional letter from Feingold and McGovern questioning the current policy is expected shortly.com . National Security Adviser Gen." THE NATION. Military Academy at West Point.com/doc/20100419/hayden. http://pr. We will "begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Yet he has refused to agree to a date by which all troops will be withdrawn as he did during the Iraq war in 2008." he told the nation in his prime-time address. President Obama laid out his vision for the American mission there." Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed on CBS's Face the Nation that while July 2011 will be "firm" start date for the withdrawal of U." On NBC's Meet the Press. re-emphasizing that July 2011 will be the beginning. 4-7-10. Last year's version had 100 House sponsors. OBAMA REFUSES TO SET A WITHDRAWAL DATE Tom Hayden.

risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible. presence. forces have been added. 12-4-09. as well as those who want to stay for as long as it takes for U. Defense Secretary Robert M. but that some would start to return home in 18 months. accessed 4-18-10.S. accessed 3-2-10." "We are not talking about an abrupt withdrawal. Gates said U.S. WILL STAY IN AFGHANISTAN (GENERAL) 1. and NATO commander.S.com . because they have seen progress in the south where U. Speaking with Afghan legislators. mostly in the north. "Get Out Now. NO ONE IN THE GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY ADVOCATING WITHDRAWAL G. "This is a transition." Gates said on ABC's "This Week.000. troops from Afghanistan. Obama announced last week that he would soon send 30. insisted that the United States will ensure Afghan forces are ready to provide security before there are any meaningful reductions in the U. "Robert Gates Says Afghanistan Withdrawal Will Be Gradual.S. Pascal Zachary. The end of the proxy war between two superpowers spawned a civil war marked by some of the most intense combat seen in more than three decades of nonstop conflict in Afghanistan. 12-7-09. www. goals to be met.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www." IN THESE TIMES. troops may leave the country in July 2011. Obama's speech has touched a nerve in Afghanistan.inthesetimes." Gates. "Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) -while Afghan security capacity matures -. Gates denied Sunday that President Obama had set an "exit strategy" for Afghanistan.S. That escalation in Afghanistan is no longer viewed as inevitable is welcome. appearing on television news programs with other senior U. Pakistani and Indian governments are concerned that the war-weary United States might sharply scale back its commitment to the region.S. We are talking about something that will take place over a period of time.com/2009/dec/07/world/la-fg-gates-afghanistan7-2009dec07. . The Afghan. U.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/03/AR2009120304681.S." he wrote in his confidential assessment of the war. Jones appeared on the Sunday TV talk shows in a continuing effort to explain a policy that aims to satisfy those who want to end the war swiftly." LOS ANGELES TIMES. leaked to the Washington Post. troops would first be withdrawn from areas where the Taliban poses less of a threat. officials.com/article/5006/get_out_now/.oneparadigm. He said U. said the Obama administration intended to maintain its commitment to Afghanistan while gradually shifting security responsibilities to the country's central government. troops to Afghanistan.in total defeat. and he forecast that only a "handful" of U. CURRENT PLANS CALL FOR A SLOW WITHDRAWAL Paul Richter. www.S. when a withdrawal is due to begin. where large segments of the population remain deeply scarred by the U.S. Still. In Kabul on Thursday. http://articles. the top U. No single voice in the foreign policy establishment supports the speedy exit of combat forces. Yet missing from the debate is any serious consideration of complete withdrawal of U. officials sought to assure anxious Afghan leaders that despite the withdrawal deadline.S." WASHINGTON POST.S. WILL NOT LEAVE UNTIL AFGHANISTAN'S ARMY CAN DEAL WITH SECURITY ISSUES Karen DeYoung. decision to disengage soon after the Soviet Union pulled out its troops in 1989. His decision to set July 2011 as the point when U. military commanders had reason for optimism that a minimum 18-month troop buildup would work.latimes. accessed 3-2-10. McChrystal.S. 2. as it has in the past.S. "Gates: 'No Deadlines' on Troop Withdrawal. though even McChrystal concedes that the United States might soon experience involuntary withdrawal -. 3.000 additional U. Afghanistan will not be abandoned.html. troops will begin to depart has proved the most difficult element to explain to domestic audiences and allied governments. Gates. U. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and national security advisor James L.washingtonpost. bringing the total to nearly 100. 10-9-09.S.16 STATUS QUO: U. Gen.S. Stanley A.

www.S." he said." said Gen. and that most would be in place in time to join in the spring fighting after the winter snows melt in Afghanistan's rugged mountain regions. "It's not a withdrawal. . is neither irreversible nor even a deadline. Mr. or whatever the conditions permit. will begin to withdraw at that time. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Admiral Michael Mullen. to the Afghans. CURRENT WITHDRAWAL DEADLINES ARE MEANINGLESS -. Gates said that under the plan.WOULD BE SLOW AT BEST Mark Mazzetti. THE JULY 2011 DEADLINE IS MEANINGLESS -. Clinton and Mullen each made statements effectively declaring the July 2011 deadline meaningless.U. top US national security officials said Wednesday. every Republican senator and most Democrats voiced support for the escalation of the war. but several of the Republicans pressed the trio of witnesses on Obama's one-sentence reference to July 2011 as the beginning of a drawdown of US forces. speaking on CNN's "State of the Union." "What we have is a specific date on which we will begin transferring responsibility for security district by district. 100. The United States did not focus on winning over non-ideological militants to the government's side during the first year of Holbrooke's tenure largely because last year's presidential election diverted his team's attention. announced by President Obama in his speech to West Point military cadets Tuesday night." WSWS. accessed 4-18-10.17 STATUS QUO: ANSWERS TO: "WITHDRAWAL TIMELINE/JULY 2011" 1. the president's national security adviser." NEW YORK TIMES. province by province in Afghanistan. success will elude us." Mr. 1-7-10. 12-3-09.wsws. The Obama administration sent a forceful public message Sunday that American military forces could remain in Afghanistan for a long time. 2. JULY 2011 IS NOT A WITHDRAWAL DATE Joshua Kucera. International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). are being widely misinterpreted. "We have strategic interests in South Asia that should not be measured in terms of finite times.shtml. "Afghanistan: US Will Try to Convert Taliban Militants . chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. or some small number. however. James L. That date instead will mark the time when the US begins its handover to Afghan security forces. http://www. Gates. During the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday morning. The July 2011 date for beginning a withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.html. "Obama Administration Backtracks on Afghanistan Withdrawal Date. Obama's war council seemed to be part of a focused and determined effort to ease concerns about the president's emphasis on setting a date for reducing America's presence in Afghanistan after more than eight years of war." EURASIA INSIGHT.S. and emphasizing that the Obama administration was committed to a long-term military presence in Central Asia. www." 3. defending Obama's decision to send an additional 30. accessed 4-9-10. and "some handful." Mr.shtml." On NBC's "Meet the Press. "No Firm Plans for a U. The television appearances by the senior members of Mr.oneparadigm. If we don't deal with it. Gates revealed that some of these new troops would arrive in Afghanistan before Christmas. It will become a priority in 2010. Gates. in particular the mid-2011 date for troop withdrawal. In response. Holbrooke also said President Barack Obama's statements on US strategy in Afghanistan." "We're going to be in the region for a long time. TROOPS WILL STAY Patrick Martin.org/departments/insight/articles/eav010710. but the start of a responsible transition in which American combat troops will begin to draw down.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. "It's absolutely imperative that we deal with this issue." Holbrooke said. adding that another review in December will look at that issue again. seeking to blunt criticism that President Obama had sent the wrong signal in his war-strategy speech last week by projecting July 2011 as the start of a withdrawal.com/2009/12/07/world/asia/07afghan.org/articles/2009/dec2009/obam-d03. "There isn't a deadline.com . Gates said on CBS's "Face the Nation. Gates played down the significance of the July 2011 target date. Exit in Afghanistan. testified before Senate and House committees throughout the day. Jones. In a flurry of coordinated television interviews." Echoing General Jones.000 US troops to Afghanistan. 12-6-09.000 American troops would be in Afghanistan in July 2011.nytimes. Obama's new plan. accessed 4-8-10.eurasianet. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other top administration officials said that any troop pullout beginning in July 2011 would be slow and that the Americans would only then be starting to transfer security responsibilities to Afghan forces under Mr.Holbrooke. Defense Secretary Robert M.

S. India. if you don't insist on a deadline.S. 2. . accessed 3-15-10. perhaps along the lines of a coalition government a la Nepal. China.tcf. asserted that Afghanistan was an existentialist threat. 3-10-10. India. and China and the various "stans" -.S. contain Kabul's greatest peril -. in ousting the Taliban in 2001 out of fear that otherwise the Taliban militants would foment domestic Islamic insurgencies within their borders and possibly spur narcotics traffic throughout the region.." But. we are still intent on tracking down and defeating al-Qaeda worldwide.org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. Iran. there may be grounds for both parties to work out a deal as Karzai.FORCES AFGHANISTAN GOVERNMENT TO INSTITUTE ANTI-CORRUPTION REFORMS. wrote in a confidential cable to Washington last November. and Saudi Arabia (among other nations) are already giving economic aid to Kabul and would surely increase their assistance if the U. 3.18 1. Obama was saying. as the Taliban is a local Pashtun group.tcf. accessed 3-15-10. DEADLINE IS KEY -. the Obama deadline at least meets the foe's condition and will test the Taliban's readiness to abide by it.org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. 3-10-10. is a fellow Pashtun. http://takingnote.com .html. indeed.the Taliban -." TAKING NOTE. fellow. DEADLINE GOOD -. governance or development. Karl Eikenberry. failure was not an option. had no leverage over Karzai. http://takingnote. Century Foundation. since many in the Taliban cannot forgive al-Qaeda for its 9/11 attacks on the U.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: DEADLINE www.and "deny it the ability to overthrow the government. whether defense. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. Today Iran.oneparadigm. we don't have the resources to do more. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. not a global Islamic extremist movement or al-Qaeda. especially if Obama's surge manages to blunt the Taliban offensive and convince the insurgents that their cause is futile. the U. and its NATO allies are not going to continue shouldering the burden of the Afghan war indefinitely and that the countries that border Afghanistan or have interests in it -. too. the front line in the war on terror. This means that even if Karzai makes no progress with the Taliban. will do little to reform his government. and take over the defense of his own country. therefore. and that.must now themselves become engaged in this conflict.FORCES INTERESTED REGIONAL STATES TO STEP UP AND ADDRESS THE CONFLICT Stephen Schlesinger. He and much of his circle do not want the US to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. As the current U." Thus President Obama. DEADLINE WILL BOLSTER CREDIBILITY OF KARZAI'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TALIBAN Stephen Schlesinger. And.html. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. which led to the Taliban's defeat in 2001. Century Foundation. Karzai. fellow. had to establish a clear finish date by which time Karzai had to take fuller responsibility over his own nation's fate. reduced its own. Neighbors Being Neighborly The deadline is also a signal to our compatriots in the region that the U.org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. as Obama said. accessed 3-15-10.S. is already making overtures to the Taliban. And a settlement with the Taliban could well mean the end of al-Qaeda. to exert pressure on Karzai to end his reliance on America. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. India.tcf." TAKING NOTE. http://takingnote. Why should he have set a deadline at all? For the simple reason that. at best. writing in the January 2010 issue of the New York Review of Books.including Russia. possibly as a result of the Obama deadline. sets a date for withdrawal. as British Afghan expert Rory Stewart. What else does a deadline accomplish? A deadline will likely give the Karzai government more credibility as it seeks to begin serious negotiations with the Taliban. One may recall that Russia.S.S. envoy to Afghanistan. ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURITY Stephen Schlesinger. Hamid Karzai.S. "Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden. They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending 'war on terror' and for military bases to use against surrounding powers. 3-10-10. most of al-Qaeda's band have already fled to Pakistan or Yemen. fellow.html. but in Afghanistan we can. In any event. end corruption." Or." TAKING NOTE. Century Foundation. saw it: "As long as the U.S. The Taliban have insisted all along that they won't start talks with Karzai until the U. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. Yes. supplying resources and forces to defeat the enemy. and Tajikistan originally assisted the U. Iran. the President of Afghanistan.

Group Blog of The Century Foundation. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. knowing in advance that there is a withdrawal date.tcf. DEADLINE GOOD -. Group Blog of The Century Foundation. 5. some U.org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. ideological. There is concern.N. will simply wait until the Americans leave in order to topple the Karzai regime.N. http://takingnote.including the Taliban -. 3-10-10. By talking about costs.S. in fact. Though President Obama has never publicly recommended the U. as I noted earlier. Thus Obama's July 2011 date could actually lead to talks rather than to an upsurge in Taliban fighting. Thus.org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. serves as a checkmate on any effort by our military leaders to try. he did in his West Point speech single out the U. would organize the gathering on a global basis.N. and other priorities.WANT A DEPARTURE DEADLINE. might use its good offices to convene a peace conference akin to its 2002 conference setting up Afghanistan's interim government -.N. But Obama's explanation of his deadline in his West Point speech helps to dispel doubts about America's long-term willingness to engage in the region.html. accessed 3-15-10. that Washington is not going to engage in an endless war and the U. fellow. this argument does not take into consideration the fact that the U. in addition. Finally. fellow. from the start of the surge. cultural.and could cause some of our NATO brethren to reconsider the depth of their own involvement in the Afghan war. in fact.and meld together all the disparate geographical. Century Foundation. as one of America's most important "partners" in Afghanistan helping "to pursue a more effective civilian strategy. One last impact that a deadline might provide is a specific timeline for outside negotiators like the U. accessed 3-15-10. This might change if Pakistan persuades the Afghan Taliban to drop its ties to al-Qaeda -. commitment is to the mission of getting rid of the Taliban and al-Qaeda and helping to secure their governments -. Furthermore. in advance. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. to circumvent Obama and prolong the war. introduction of some 30.19 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: DEADLINE cont'd 4." TAKING NOTE." TAKING NOTE. A deadline also has the advantage of alerting our own armed forces.oneparadigm. the U. to defeating the Taliban or state-building.S. officials have made contact with the Taliban. is not about to let the Karzai government collapse. the fragility of public support." Already. as a possible intermediary to negotiate an end to the conflict.S. but it will continue to supply military equipment and financial aid to the regime. it is worth testing the Taliban on whether they are serious about negotiations or not.S. presumably.S. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. " The Only Way Out Of Afghanistan Is With A Withdrawal Deadline. though. WE WILL DEFEAT THEM BY THE TIME WE WITHDRAW Stephen Schlesinger. might accept a continuing Paki-Taliban sphere of influence in Afghanistan.N.N. fellow. at the time of the turnover.tcf. . nonetheless. In any case. 3-10-10. DEADLINE GOOD FOR U.000 more troops into Afghanistan may severely damage the Taliban by July 2011 and allow the training of a sizeable number of Afghan troops and.except this time the U." TAKING NOTE. LEADING TO A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Stephen Schlesinger. TALIBAN WILL NOT WAIT US OUT -. The existence of a date certain. that a deadline may cause confusion in the ranks of some of our Afghan and Pakistani allies regarding how serious the U. through news leaks or public appeals.S.html.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.in which case the U. Still. INVOLVEMENT. the U. All of this together might give the Taliban yet another reason to enter into negotiations. adjust its scope of action within these political limits. commits to a departure date. bringing in all of the states that border Afghanistan. and political interests in play.com .org/2010/03/the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan-is-a-withdrawal-deadline. as well as India and Russia to hammer out a comprehensive settlement plan. the Taliban have said all along that it will not negotiate with the Karzai government or with the Americans until the U. "we will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul.S. all of the NATO countries with troops on the ground.N. As Rory Stewart noted in the New York Review of Books: By no longer committing the U. even after the deadline. military must.SPURS U. Whatever he does.S. FORCES -. to get involved in trying to settle the conflict a la the loya jirga route. http://takingnote. accessed 3-15-10. 3-10-10. most of the controversy over Obama's deadline has come with the argument that the Taliban. Century Foundation. accelerate Western help in reviving Afghanistan's domestic economy.tcf. http://takingnote.html." 6. Obama will have a difficult time persuading the Pakistanis to drop their support of the Afghan Taliban so long as Pakistan and India remain at loggerheads over Kashmir.LEADS TO A MORE REALISTIC POLICY THAT WILL ACCOUNT FOR THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS Stephen Schlesinger. Such an initiative would be geared to serve the interests of all parties -. In any case. [Obama] dramatically reduces the objectives and costs of the mission. As President Obama said in his West Point speech. It may pull out many of its troops from the country after 2011. he reminds the generals why this surge must be the last. Century Foundation.

and U. local groups will put forward and struggle to enhance or protect local interests. That will constitute a natural brake on the Taliban which will find itself impelled to compromise. Rather than committing more troops.especially military power -. A really free loya jirga and one held soon is the best hope to create a more balanced national government.S. The surge of troops in Iraq might have helped -. http://hnn. engaging with the "moderates" while fighting the "hard liners" is an echo of what we tried in Vietnam. Today. intelligence agencies should continue to watch Afghanistan closely.TALIBAN DEFEAT INEVITABLE OTHERWISE William Polk. upping the ante with additional combat forces might make sense. A LOYA JIRGA IS THE BEST WAY TO STABILIZE THE COUNTRY -. Yet the real influence in Afghanistan has traditionally rested with tribal leaders and warlords. the U.independent. objectives more effectively and more cheaply than Western combat battalions. Reading between the lines of his recent speech.S.S. offering cash and other emoluments to local leaders who will collaborate with the United States in excluding terrorists from their territory. military. cohesive nation-state. 12-31-08. the Taliban suffered no serious defections. "Winning in Afghanistan. priorities lie elsewhere. And we should remember that despite all the hype about their early victories. the new president should withdraw them while devising a more realistic -. and the Pentagon should crush any jihadist activities that local powers fail to stop themselves. While our military leaders are still trying. www." The Independent Institute. The new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan should therefore become decentralization and outsourcing. accessed 4-19-10. could still pay off many Taliban to switch sides. Bacevich." HISTORY NEWS NETWORK. Were U.S. But U. achieved this qualified success (in Iraq. senior fellow and Director. accessed 3-5-10. although the tribal leadership has been weakened by years of war and assassinations. History and International Relations. www.S. that aura will fade. 2.com . many Taliban fight for money rather than because of ideological zeal. once we are no longer a target. This is partly because in the run-up to the national loya jirga. Accomplishing that won't require creating a modern. It did not work there and shows no sign of working in Afghanistan. As with the Israelis in Gaza. Buying off and dividing the Taliban is the way to do that.oneparadigm." The longer we delay the process and the harder we try to prevent it.S. Contrary to conventional wisdom. .S. President Obama then needs to rapidly take advantage of any lessening of violence. The idea that we can split the Taliban.20 1. president needs to realize that America's real political objective in Afghanistan is actually quite modest: to ensure that terrorist groups like Al Qaeda can't use it as a safe haven for launching attacks against the West.newsweek.is quite limited these days. "More 'Corruption' Is Needed in Afghanistan. 3.and more affordable -.S. therefore.asp?id=2677. President Obama seems to be looking for a minimal level of stability in Afghanistan in order to politically sell getting out of Afghanistan. Offered the right incentives. power -.but the real reason that violence is down in Iraq is that al-Qaeda's indiscriminate violence became too great even for Sunnis to endure. has not withdrawn rapidly and could yet be caught in an ethno-sectarian civil war). while using the cover of the temporary troop surge to rapidly withdraw from Afghanistan. officials tend to assume that power in Afghanistan ought to be exercised from Kabul. University of Chicago. The Obama administration is using Iraq as a template for success in Afghanistan without focusing on how the U. much of the Taliban's success was the result of negotiation. Center on Peace & Liberty. resources unlimited and U.SHOULD FOCUS ON BUILDING ALLIANCES WITH LOCAL LEADERS WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF KEEPING AFGHANISTAN FROM BECOMING A TALIBAN SAFE HAVEN Andrew J. the more certain it is that the Taliban will dominate. December 9. The basis of U. warlords can accomplish U. periodic airstrikes may well be required to pre-empt brewing plots before they mature.S. Even after their bloody defeat in 2001." NEWSWEEK.com/id/177374. former Professor of History. Washington should work with it. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan.us/articles/120371. 2009. regardless of how many combat forces are sent into battle. This has been uniformly true of insurgencies for the last two centuries all over the world: those who fought hardest against the foreigners took control. This doesn't mean Washington should blindly trust that warlords will become America's loyal partners.org/newsroom/article.S. 11-23-09. Boston University. they enjoy the aura of national defenders against us. the U. interests in Afghanistan more important.S. WE SHOULD JUST BUY OFF THE TALIBAN AND GET OUT Ivan Eland. and the United States simply paid the Sunni tribes to change sides and fight the group instead of the U.strategy for Afghanistan. it appears that "the Obama administration has concluded that the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a political or military movement. accessed 3-4-10.infusing a similar number of troops in 2005 didn't -. SHOULD NOT RELY ON MORE TROOPS -. Rather than challenge that tradition.html. Professor. In Afghanistan. U.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: LOCALIZATION www. U.S.

So the question is talk now and later or only talk later. 3. If the United States indicates its willingness to negotiate a timetable for the withdrawal of its military forces from Afghanistan with a national unity government. 10-7-09.and the United States is not in the financial position to fund a longer occupation of the country. NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PARTIES ARE THE BEST WAY OUT Robert Naiman. 1-5-10. in the case of Afghanistan. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. www. accessed 4-8-10." HUFFINGTON POST. Pakistan's ISI and elements of Saudi Arabia could be brought in to facilitate a deal.org/what-do-afghans-want-withdrawal-but-not-too-fast-and-a-negotiated-peace-by-milan-rai." This begs the question: "irreconcilable" to what? This is certainly not the opinion of people who have been involved in the talks that have taken place so far. a solid 64% of Afghans thought 'the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they agree to stop fighting'." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW. that there is a core of Taliban leaders who will not be persuaded to support a non-Islamic regime. These break away leaders need to be protected and grafted into the political system. officials that Taliban leader Mullah Omar is "irreconcilable. "What do Afghans Want? Withdrawal .But Not Too Fast . 15 March 2009) Talks are only meaningful if the other side is willing to play their part. then those individuals must delineate a long-term plan for defeating the Taliban and the conservative Islamist worldview they represent. If there are circumstances in which Mullah Omar and his men will sign and abide by an agreement that guarantees that Afghanistan will not be a base for organizing attacks on the United States. because whoever participates in such a government will be "at the table" when the negotiation takes place. Many argue that the Taliban cannot or should not be negotiated with. 2. AFGHAN PUBLIC WANTS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Milan Rai. 9-15-09. The process of negotiation will not be quick.huffingtonpost. that will be a powerful incentive for the formation of such a government. Despite all this.zcommunications. Policy Director. It seems.21 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT 1.html. http://hir. Afghans favoured preconditions to such talks: 71% said the government should 'negotiate only if the Taliban stop fighting'. The low-level recruits can also be persuaded with money.oneparadigm. former Acting Executive Director. 64% of British people also think 'America and Britain be willing to talk to the Taliban in Afghanistan in order to achieve a peace deal'. However.harvard. However. then Mullah Omar is "reconcilable" to the interests of the vast majority of Americans. "Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public.but that these negotiations are being blocked by the United States and Britain. Ultimately. Negotiated Timetable. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. accesed 4-6-10.php?page=article&id=1919. The proposition that there will be negotiations with the Taliban and other insurgents in Afghanistan has been endorsed by General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen. All the more reason to start it now. We should start the talks now. . www. NEGOTIATIONS WILL WORK Tyler Moselle. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point. there is another ring of leaders who can be bargained with and chipped away from the radical core that would support a power-sharing deal with the Afghan government. The key points in dispute are when negotiations should begin and who they should include. If critics counter the Taliban should not be negotiated with because they will not compromise on religious or women's rights. Just Foreign Policy. The position of Admiral Mullen is that we can't go to talks yet because we'd be bargaining from a position of weakness. (Sunday Times. who are determined to achieve a military victory.com/robert-naiman/withdraw-from-afghanistan_b_286866. The United States has one over-riding legitimate national security interest in Afghanistan: that the country not be a base for organizing attacks against the United States. that there is serious interest in a national reconciliation process on the part of the Taliban and the Karzai administration . Negotiations will surface the real issues in dispute.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. It is commonly said by U. accessed 4-8-10.S. according to the reports in the British press." ZNET.and a Negotiated Peace. Two more years with increased American forces will hardly solve such a problem -.com .edu/index.

demanded a strategic realignment. In his major speech on Afghanistan on 4 September. Changing sides. GIVEN THE PROPER INDUCEMENTS Fotini Christia. the United States' NATO allies. and Pakistan.S. www. We also know that the majority of Afghans (64%) want a negotiated end to the conflict. July/August 2009.S. Both the recent interagency white paper on U. and then he was his foe. experience in Iraq -. "What do Afghans Want? Withdrawal . More than the fighting. Assistant Professor. Admitting their lack of knowledge about the precise character of the insurgency. 73% of Afghans think that US-led forces in the country should either be decreased in number (44%) or 'kept at the current level' (29%). The Hazara leader Abdul Ali Mazari fought against the Pashtun headman Gulbuddin Hekmatyar before fighting by his side." FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. flipping -. The Uzbek general Abdul Rashid Dostum was the Tajik commander Ahmad Shah Massoud's friend first. Thus in Afghanistan. Afghan commanders are not cogs in a military machine but the guardians of specific interests -.oneparadigm. In Afghanistan. 4. RECONCILING THE TALIBAN IS KEY TO "WINNING" IN AFGHANISTAN Fotini Christia.is that no occupying power can hope to quash an insurgency by killing and capturing its way to victory. it was this flipping that decided major outcomes.at least not in Afghanistan. such as a shift in the balance of power. sophisticated political campaign that is built on a proper understanding of the nature of the insurgency and that. AFGHAN PUBLIC OPPOSES THE SURGE. the move will have a lasting impact only if it is accompanied by a political "surge. perhaps thousands. What we know is that the majority of people in Afghanistan (77%) want an end to the airstrikes that have killed hundreds. which lasted from the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet-backed regime in 1992 to the Taliban's capture of over 80 percent of Afghanistan in the fall of 1998.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. combined with the reconciliation efforts of the Afghan government. But it is not -.' In this. In doing so. But these wishes.and a Negotiated Peace.S. We also know that a majority of Afghans oppose the Obama surge that is increasing the number of foreign troops in the country. war in Afghanistan has developed its own peculiar rules. style. 88 n. religious. 5. a counterinsurgency strategy that includes a credible attempt at reconciliation is more likely to achieve stability than one that relies solely on foreign troops and victories in the battlefield. Their rationale was obvious: in a war that drags on." a committed effort to persuade large groups of Taliban fighters to put down their arms and give up the fight. policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan and Obama's March 27 speech announcing a new U.S. "Flipping the Taliban. ASP. Only 18% of Afghans favour an increase. enables insurgent commanders and their supporters to realign with the Afghan government. ASP. July/August 2009. Political Science MIT and Michael Semple. Few factors have motivated individual Afghan commanders over the years more than the desire to end up on the winning side. What is required instead is a nimble. Assistant Professor. realigning. Yet U. he was only following the lead of US President Barack Obama. so far as they can be known. they have argued that changing circumstances. They have often switched camps midconflict. . Political Science MIT and Michael Semple.org/what-do-afghans-want-withdrawal-but-not-too-fast-and-a-negotiated-peace-by-milan-rai.or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged . The overriding lesson of the U. By the time the Taliban reached Kabul. Although sending more troops is necessary to tip the balance of power against the insurgents. One of these rules is side with the winner. OUR OPPONENTS CAN BE PERSUADED TO SIDE WITH THE U. who launched his new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end of March with the warning that: 'if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban . and logic. of Afghan civilians. In the most recent civil war. policymakers have not adequately developed a vision of how to achieve reconciliation. Afghanistan's recent history is replete with examples of commanders choosing to flip rather than fight." ZNET. they have not declared their loyalty to a new cause or a different tribe. accesed 4-6-10. ought to be at the centre of British policy. Neither the Prime Minister nor the President often speak of the wishes of the Afghan people.is the Afghan way of war. "Flipping the Taliban. battles have often been decided less by fighting than by defections. 6.com .that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can'.first its failures and more recently its successes -. Such a minimalist approach is unlikely to deliver peace.whatever one wants to call it -. they equate reconciliation with merely cajoling Taliban foot soldiers into crossing over to the U. changing camps means living and holding on to power. Constantly shifting alliances meant no single group could gain the upper hand.22 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT cont'd 4. and are willing to accept the creation of a coalition government including the Taliban leadership. After continuing uninterrupted for more than 30 years. it was mass revulsion at the mujahideen warlords' depredations that eventually allowed the Taliban to persuade many factions to side with them. or political groups from which these men are recruited. 4.S.the interests of the fighters pledged to them and of the tribal. 88 n. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown emphasized Britain's self interest in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan: 'We are in Afghanistan as a result of a hard-headed assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain." FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. as well as saving one's family and one's village. The idea that large groups of armed men bent on killing Americans and other Westerners can be persuaded to change sides may seem fanciful at first.S. especially among its enemies. their ranks were teeming with fighters once allied with someone else. It must make friends. side. WANTS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT Milan Rai.But Not Too Fast . 10-7-09.zcommunications. the heads of mujahideen groups constantly shifted their allegiances. strategy for Afghanistan acknowledged that integrating reconcilable insurgents will be a key complement to the military buildup. regional specialist. regional specialist.

Senior Fellow.have one thing in common: the insurgency became divided. and Arsala Rahmani. he argued. President Obama then needs to rapidly take advantage of any lessening of violence. who had held senior positions in the Taliban. The Obama administration is using Iraq as a template for success in Afghanistan without focusing on how the U. and the United States simply paid the Sunni tribes to change sides and fight the group instead of the U. Nur Ali Haidery Ishaqzai. regional specialist. and more Taliban leaders must be encouraged to defect. Political Science MIT and Michael Semple. once the Taliban corps commander in Jalalabad and now a member of parliament.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.independent. because he had essentially been released from any obligations to Mullah Omar in December 2001." This rationale allowed Wahid to keep affirming his commitment to building an Islamic state in Afghanistan even as he announced that the Afghan president. tactically. Also." FOREIGN AFFAIRS v.S. the few successful counterinsurgency campaigns run by an outside power -. the United States could take advantage of Afghan culture to bring about enough short-term stability to wisely and quickly get out of Dodge. a deputy minister under the Taliban turned senator today. "Flipping the Taliban. military. achieved this qualified success (in Iraq. after Mullah Omar asked him to lead the delegation that would surrender Kandahar to pro-coalition forces and thereby forsook his exalted position as "Commander of the Faithful.S.but the real reason that violence is down in Iraq is that al-Qaeda's indiscriminate violence became too great even for Sunnis to endure. although the tribal leadership has been weakened by years of war and assassinations. the British in Malaya in the 1950s. Simply put. the U. has not withdrawn rapidly and could yet be caught in an ethno-sectarian civil war). In the 20th century. the U.23 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT cont'd 7. ASP. "More 'Corruption' Is Needed in Afghanistan. One way to achieve this is to make it easier for them to borrow Wahid's argument. His move was justified. The surge of troops in Iraq might have helped -. ARE BETTER OFF SIMPLY TRYING TO BUY OFF THE TALIBAN AS A PART OF THE WITHDRAWAL PROCESS Ivan Eland.com . accessed 4-13-10. was his new leader. being more honest with ourselves about getting bogged down in such unnecessary and ill-advised quagmires is needed.asp?id=2677. However. In sum. the director of Ariana Afghan Airlines under the Taliban. 12-9-09. he should more rapidly pull out of Iraq in order to avoid being enmeshed in a likely civil war. 88 n. while using the cover of the temporary troop surge to rapidly withdraw from Afghanistan. 4. MANY TALIBAN COMMANDERS ARE WILLING TO FLIP SIDES UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES Fotini Christia. There are plenty of similar examples of Taliban commanders who have turned: the Hotak brothers of Wardak Province. the senior Taliban commander Abdul Wahid announced that he had reconciled with the Afghan government." Independent Institute. Reading between the lines of his recent speech.oneparadigm. But such cases are still too rare. This would mean portraying those who align with Kabul and the coalition forces as patriotic Taliban truly devoted to the causes of Islam and an independent Afghanistan and those who persist in opposing progress by the central government as unpatriotic. Contrary to conventional wisdom. In Afghanistan. we need to pay off some of our opponents and head for the door. and the Americans in Iraq -.S. For all their reputed fanaticism. In December 2004. Reconciliation in Afghanistan requires distinguishing the "good" Taliban from the "bad. Taliban commanders will leave the movement and shift allegiances if the conditions are right.the Americans in the Philippines after the Spanish-American War at the turn of the last century. many Taliban fight for money rather than because of ideological zeal. President Obama seems to be looking for a minimal level of stability in Afghanistan in order to politically sell getting out of Afghanistan.infusing a similar number of troops in 2005 didn't -. July/August 2009. could still pay off many Taliban to switch sides. Buying off and dividing the Taliban is the way to do that. Abdul Salam Rocketi. . in other words." 8.S.org/newsroom/article. Assistant Professor. Hamid Karzai. www.

24 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: OFFSHORE CONTAINMENT/SPECIAL FORCES 1. U.S. 9-1-09.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.php?pub_id=10533. bringing the coalition total to 110. potent Special Forces units.500-mile border with Pakistan.000. accessed 4-9-10." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW.edu/index. and insurgent compounds. From the sky.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. http://www.000 are from Britain. in Afghanistan. cruise missiles. not simply in manpower and resources. 3. That's what we did after nearly a decade of funding the mujahedeen. deploy Special Forces for discrete operations against specific targets. . http://hir.000. Genius is not required to recognize that in Afghanistan.hks. Denying a sanctuary to terrorists who seek to attack the United States does not require Washington to pacify the entire country.cato. conventional "victory" is not a realistic option." 1-14-09. About 9. forces are being increased by 21. An Army and Marine Corps Style-Surge is the Only Solution for Afghanistan Wrong. concentrating on the porous 1.S. 2009. Some argue that if the United States does not defeat the Taliban. Research Associate. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. 1-5-10. On the ground. such as Allen's.org/pub_display. former Acting Executive Director. DRONE ATTACKS AND SPECIAL FORCES CAN CONTAIN AL QAEDA EVEN IF THE TALIBAN TAKE OVER Tyler Moselle. and we paid for it dearly eight years ago.harvard. there is no clear evidence the Taliban have enough power and support to do so. Even if the Taliban were able to control large parts of Afghanistan. foreign policy analysts. when means now.oneparadigm. Cato Institute. 4.html. accessed 3-5-10. instead. That is inconceivable. The United States should withdraw most of its forces from Afghanistan within the next 12 to 18 months and treat al Qaeda's presence in the region as a chronic. accessed 4-8-10. a definitive.S. forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore. accessed 4-8-10. 5. But there are costs to remaining in the region. SPECIAL FORCES AND INTELLIGENCE SHARING ARE ENOUGH TO SOLVE Malou Innocent. intelligence operatives. they will likely take over the country as they did in the 1990s and provide safe-haven to terrorist groups.harvard. nationwide. Strategists and policy planners should evaluate the British role in Oman as a useful case study.com . Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops. to 68. as well as an additional small group of advisers to train Afghan police and military forces." CATO WHITE PAPER. but in giving al Qaeda what it wants. not heavier. perhaps for a decade or more. foreign policy analyst.cato. America should scale down its combat presence.washingtonpost. any new military strategy in Afghanistan should be based on Special Forces.000. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. using intelligence. The American footprint should be lighter. is squandered. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan.edu/cchrp/editorial/2009/SixFallacies_Moselle.pdf. Nonetheless. and looking weak by remaining and possibly accomplishing little. U. So. the United States can retain a small number of covert operatives for intelligence gathering and discrete operations against specific targets. I think perhaps the worst thing we can do is turn our back on this region entirely. "6 Fallacies of a Surge in Afghanistan. the United States could carry out drone strikes and Special Forces raids against training camps and leadership. drones.html. the CIA and US military did not have predator strike capabilities in the 1990s nor the high-level political willingness to strike at Al Qaeda leaders and camps. problem. 2. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. said de Gaulle. to Get Out of Afghanistan. unmanned aerial vehicles can monitor villages. OFFSHORING THE WAR IS THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH CONFLICT George F. Given the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan. and engage in intensive surveillance as it already does today." WASHINGTON POST.CAN BE MET WITH ONLY A FEW OPERATIVES Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. accessed 4-8-10. or sustain a long-term military presence in Central Asia. eradicate its opium fields. training camps. and potentially constabulary forces from NATO allies. September 14. Harvard University. a nation that actually matters.php?page=article&id=1919. "Time for the U. www. where support for the war is waning. Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that. The current situation is not comparable to the US counter-terrorism strategy of the 1990s when the CIA and US military had minimal presence in Afghanistan. airstrikes and small. Kennedy School of Government. continue open relations and intelligence sharing with all countries in the region. Will. but manageable. While U. before more American valor. pushing the conflict into Pakistan. Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency doctrine has come a long way. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. www.S. WITHDRAWAL DOES NOT THREATEN OUR INTERESTS -. Genius. recalling Bismarck's decision to halt German forces short of Paris in 1870. November/December 2009. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point. However. www. A LIGHTER FOOTPRINT UTILIZING SPECIAL FORCES IS A BETTER OPTION Tyler Moselle.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912. sometimes consists of knowing when to stop.

transmitting 16. Afghanistan is never going to become a central Asian version of Arizona. and they can help protect legitimate American security interests. Vice President. WE CAN USE UAVs TO TAKE OUT AL QAEDA -. www. accessed 4-9-10. November/December 2009. Cato Institute. http://www. the blueprint for an effective counterterrorism approach is the initial U.000 hours of video each month. should be sufficient.org/pub_display. lighter. we can target terrorists where they do emerge via airstrikes and covert raids. No matter how long we stay. when the United States documented links between the Taliban and al Qaeda. to work with cooperative players.org/pub_display. INTERESTS CAN BE PROTECTED WITH ONLY SPECIAL FORCES Ted Galen Carpenter. Escalation. how much money we spend. We should stop operating under the delusion that it will. UAV technology would also help to ensure we do not see a repeat of the 1990s. Likewise. but also in politically free and economically prosperous countries like Germany. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. U. September 14. and the United States. Spain. and cheaper than manned aircraft. Washington's response. a major U. Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. foreign policy analysts. denying a sanctuary to terrorists who seek to attack the United States does not require complete pacification of Afghanistan. large-scale military presence in the region. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan.S. "Al-Qaida Should Be Main Focus in Afghanistan. 2009. Thus. Furthermore.S. Policymakers in Washington must stop conflating the punishment of al-Qaida with the creation of stable societies. and operations can run without combat search-and-rescue in place.php?pub_id=11627.php?pub_id=10533. and how many lives we squander. Small numbers of CIA and Special Forces personnel. Rather than propping up a failed state. accessed 3-5-10. with an open-ended mission. is fighting several internal insurgencies.S. In short.cato. UAVs are smaller.html.-led invasion in 2001. In Iraq and Afghanistan. foreign policy analyst. Today.DO NOT NEED AN OCCUPATION Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. forces can and should be withdrawn over the next 18 months. U. Americans should reject the misguided belief that terrorists can only flourish in failed states like Afghanistan. . unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) surveil roads for improvised explosive devices.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. India. WE CAN DEAL WITH AL QAEDA WITH ONLY SPECIAL FORCES Malou Innocent. the very al-Qaida terrorists responsible for 9/11 not only found sanctuary in poverty-stricken Afghanistan. http://www.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. particularly when ensuring the survival of an illegitimate foreign government distracts from the conceptually simpler task of finding and killing terrorists.oneparadigm. That means that virtually all U.S. is both unnecessary and unsustainable. when small Special Forces teams. which is the course we're on now.S. much less a long-term. ally far more stable than Afghanistan. working in conjunction with local militias. Technological advances over the past decade allow us to keep an eye on places without having tens of thousands of boots on the ground.cato. 3-29-10. Al Qaeda poses a manageable security problem. not an existential threat to America. UAV missions are far less intrusive than a large-scale military presence. but hovered between indifference and bureaucratic paralysis when shaping policy in the region. Cato Institute. leaders should focus on countering the al-Qaida threat still clinging to life in this region.000 boots on the ground. accessed 4-9-10. because they don't need equipment to support a crew. is precisely the wrong strategy. Technological advances over the past decade allow us to monitor places without having 100.com ." DAILY CALLER." CATO WHITE PAPER.cato. We don't need a large military footprint to achieve such modest military goals. 8.25 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: OFFSHORE CONTAINMENT/SPECIAL FORCES cont'd 6. 7. After all. assembled quickly and struck effectively and cheaply at "real" enemies.

I believe that in the coming months. they will do what neither the Russians nor we have been able to do -.co.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: PAKISTAN www. at base.us/articles/120371. Britain and America should demilitarise the war on terror. a population of nearly 30 million Pashtuns and the desire to preserve their neighborhood from foreign control. religion. former Professor of History. have subsidized them and have sought in the Taliban a barrier against Indian infiltration of their backyard. we must set a date for ending our part of the war. But it is important to be clear: It is the setting of the date rather than actually withdrawing that will enable the process to begin." HISTORY NEWS NETWORK. This move would offer a wise American president an opening to begin the process of turning over the war to our ally Pakistan. No Strings Attached.com . who in turn would lose their anti-American rallying cry and seek sanctuary elsewhere.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/17/afghanistan-obama-withdrawal-america-military.bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. 11-17-09. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan. They would hand that job to the appropriate authorities. An American withdrawal would force Pakistan once again to be the power broker and guarantor of regional stability. And. on bringing death. http://hnn. University of Chicago. That long-term interest remains despite the current conflict. The Pakistanis have a long history with the Taliban. the Pakistanis share with the Afghanis. know them intimately. popinjay generals and crippling budgets.oneparadigm. 11-23-09.guardian.26 1. The Pashtun would lose interest in their al-Qaida guests. destruction and exile to hundreds of thousands of foreigners in the faint belief that this might stop a few bombs going off back home. WITHDRAWAL WILL FORCE PAKISTAN TO USE ITS LEVERAGE TO DE-RADICALIZE THE PASHTUNS Simon Jenkins. surely the most counterproductive main-force deployment in recent history." GUARDIAN. To enable such a course of action to become effective and to encompass Afghanistan. SETTING A DEADLINE WOULD ENCOURAGE PAKISTAN TO FORCE THE TALIBAN TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE William Polk. accessed 4-19-10. "Face Down the Militarists and Get Out of Afghanistan. The region would regain an equilibrium it can never achieve under western occupation. negotiations are unlikely. 2.html. albeit on new terms. Afghanistan. Thus. to the police and security services. Before such a date is announced. They need no longer rely on grand armies. . accessed 4-19-10. www.

" The late Zahir Shah continued this policy and expressed his dismay to me when the Bonn Agreement of December 2001. and a pledge that no permanent military bases will remain in the region. India. its historic adversary Pakistan. which accounted for $425. "is a policy of neutrality." MIDDLE EAST ONLINE. Asia Program. following the ouster of the Taliban. The regional partners with the greatest stake in the stability of Afghanistan.com/prashad12042009. created the Taliban and has continued to support it in the hope of establishing an anti-Indian client state in Kabul. IS THE BEST WAY TO STABILIZE AFGHANISTAN Vijay Prashad. COUPLED WITH U. and those that are defined will be difficult to reach. Pakistan. accessed 3-4-10. Obama said at West Point.oneparadigm. 2009. First. BASES ARE THE PRINCIPLE OBSTACLE TO A REGIONAL ACCORD Selig Harrison. China. Some of the seventy-four US bases in Afghanistan have been developed for counterinsurgency operations and might be expendable." That is true if the definition of occupation is a 19th century one.S. would be barred from operating out of Afghanistan militarily in the event of an India-Pakistan conflict and from using Afghanistan as a base for supporting Baluch and other ethnic insurgents in Pakistan. . no diplomatic cover for US disengagement will be possible. "We have no interest in occupying your country. WITHDRAWAL. are expected to expand steadily in the years ahead.7 million in the fiscal 2008 Pentagon military construction budget alone.27 1. "How to Exit Afghanistan. Director. The high walls of the bases and the hum of the drones is enough to distort the fine sentiments in Obama's phrase. There is a better alternative to escalation. "The Regional Alternative to Escalation in Afghanistan. by free trade agreements and dispensations for certain corporations. "How to Exit Afghanistan. like other signatories. spoke only of "non-interference" and studiously avoided references to "neutrality" and "nonalignment. Trinity College. It is committed to empire.com/english/?id=36363. Thus. REGIONALIZATION. The underlying issue that he confronts is what an "exit strategy" means and whether the United States will be using Afghanistan to further its global power projection long after he has left office and long after the Taliban and Al Qaeda are forgotten. Neutrality was Afghanistan's traditional posture during the decades of the monarchy. 3. Director." To be sure. But a 21st century occupation is conducted via military bases and extra-territorial privileges. Center for International Policy.middle-east-online. But Islamabad would have two powerful reasons for joining in the accord and for stopping its aid. "The best and most fruitful policy that one can imagine for Afghanistan. India. The United States-NATO Occupation has ill-defined signposts. President Obama has yet to address the future of the air bases. which is to make the stability of Afghanistan a regional responsibility. Professor and Director. www. one of Afghanistan's neighbors. www. PAKISTAN WILL COME TO THE TABLE AND ACCEPT A REGIONAL AGREEMENT Selig Harrison." MIDDLE EAST ONLINE. will not begin a genuine process if the US-NATO Occupation persists. The principal obstacle to a regional neutralization accord is likely to be the Pentagon's desire to have "permanent access" to its network of Afghan bases near the borders of Russia. 12-25-09. Pakistan would still have political allies in future Afghan power struggles.com/english/?id=36363.middle-east-online.com . accessed 4-18-09. accessed 4-18-09. 12-25-09. Asia Program.S. U. Second. 2. and until he does." said King Nadir Shah in 1931. December 4-6. International Studies. the accord would be designed only to prevent the Taliban from re-establishing control in Kabul and using its local strongholds as a base for terrorist operations elsewhere. not to remove all Taliban influence in Afghanistan itself. and to withdraw in a very timely fashion.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: REGIONALIZATION www. until Soviet intervention dragged it into global power rivalries. Iran and Central Asia to facilitate intelligence surveillance as well as any future military operations. But the big airfields at Bagram and Kandahar. such as Iran. http://counterpunch. This is not a marker that the US is willing to put on the table.html. Why would the Chinese or the Iranians get their hands dirty if this means that their work will reward the US with military bases at Bagram and Kabul? A prerequisite for their entry into the process is the withdrawal of the US." COUNTERPUNCH. China and the various Central Asian republics. Center for International Policy.

. to start serious negotiations with people it had previously been trying to kill. "Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public.even a signal that the United States is willing to adopt a timetable for withdrawal. and of Western publics. WITHDRAWAL WITH A PUBLICLY NEGOTIATED TIMETABLE IS THE BEST WAY TO STABILIZE AFGHANISTAN Robert Naiman. www. accessed 4-16-10. "Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public. There are behind-the-scenes debates already underway over providing safe-passage documents which would enable Taliban leaders to enter Kabul or a third country for political negotiations. At the current juncture. 9-15-09. such an agreement would dramatically increase the patience of the Afghan public.dailykos. law.S. 4. forces. 3. . In the debate on Iraq. directly and indirectly." THE NATION. Some will continue to argue that the war in Afghanistan is making Americans safer.huffingtonpost. It sent a strong signal to Iraqi political actors that the U. the most obvious precedent to look at is: how are we getting the hell out of Iraq? And the answer is: with a timetable for military withdrawal. Such an agreement would bolster the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Congress never succeeded legislatively in writing a military withdrawal timetable into U. A REAL TIMETABLE IS THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO GET OUR OF AFGHANISTAN Robert Naiman. this is a straw argument. The United States should withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan. which is now the basis of a signed agreement between the U. we were told that a "precipitous" withdrawal would be a disaster.S. either they don't believe it is making them safer. But the fact that the majority of the House and Senate went on the record in favor of a timetable had dramatic effects in Iraq. withdrawal is indistinguishable from zero.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: TIMETABLE www.. but the US State Department and Pentagon are so far opposed both to negotiations and safe-passage documents.html.oneparadigm.S. But there is no higher judge on this question than the American people.com/robert-naiman/withdraw-from-afghanistan_b_286866. Former United Nations envoy Kai Eide supports negotiating with the Taliban too. In 2007. negotiated timetable for the withdrawal of U. Some may argue against a "precipitous" or "immediate" withdrawal. 4-7-10. It put pressure the Bush Administration to compromise its objectives. If the American people have turned against the war. accessed 4-8-10. even a signal that a decisive body of opinion in official Washington is supporting a timetable for withdrawal . Now a timetable for the withdrawal of U. a political solution is increasingly likely. In the world of practical affairs. though minority. Just Foreign Policy. Negotiated Timetable. But it also will reveal a lack of Democratic unity in both houses. Policy Director. forces.com/story/2010/4/15/9197/77565. as well as the legitimacy of the foreign military presence." A troop withdrawal deadline is seen by peace advocates as an incentive to draw the Taliban into peace talks. The Feingold-McGovern proposal could challenge the president if it achieves debate and a substantial. "Feingold. a political solution is almost surely impossible.S. or they believe that whatever contribution the war is making to Americans' safety is too small to justify the human and financial costs." DAILY KOS. forces from Iraq is the basis of an agreement negotiated and signed by the Bush Administration.com/doc/20100419/hayden. U.28 1. http://www. It may not be the right strategy but it suits most people politically. www. IRAQ PROVES THAT A TIMETABLE IS EFFECTIVE Robert Naiman." HUFFINGTON POST. such a withdrawal from Afghanistan should be our goal. "the mood. Executive Director. officials have repeatedly conceded that the endgame in Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement between the Afghan government and the main insurgent groups in Afghanistan. Negotiated Timetable. when critics of the war advocated for a timetable for withdrawal. Such a timetable should be a core provision of an agreement negotiated by the United States with the Afghan government and with international military partners of the United States in Afghanistan governing the presence of foreign military forces in the country. and the key chip that only the United States can bring to the negotiating table is willingness to agree to a timetable for military withdrawal. 4-15-10. most feasible and most ethical way to bring this about is through the establishment of a public. www. and Iraqi governments. accessed 4-18-10. 2. 9-15-09. The adoption by the United States of a timetable for withdrawal .is likely to have dramatic political effects in Afghanistan." HUFFINGTON POST.huffingtonpost. for the operations of foreign military forces while they remain.html.seems to be granting the administration some additional time as the new troops deploy. vote in favor. As soon as the United States is willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U. forces. McGovern Introduce Bill to End Afghanistan War. Just Foreign Policy.com/robert-naiman/withdraw-from-afghanistan_b_286866. which Karzai favors. "A Withdrawal Plan for Afghanistan.com .S.S. Such a settlement will only be possible if it is supported by the United States. The safest. The importance of establishing a timetable for military withdrawal cannot be overstated.S. If you want to figure out how we are going to get the hell out of Afghanistan. and it was time to focus on where you wanted to be when the music stopped. Is that a "precipitous" withdrawal? If not. Policy Director. According to one ranking insider. just as these things had dramatic political effects in Iraq. WITHDRAWAL DEADLINE WILL DRAW THE TALIBAN INTO PEACE TALKS Tom Hayden. So long as the United States refuses to agree to a timetable for withdrawal of U.S.S.thenation. the probability of an "immediate" U. Just Foreign Policy. accessed 4-8-10. was leaving.

www. and Germany calling for a timeline. General McChrystal's plan offers no timetable or exit strategy. Even without a regional diplomatic framework. even in the improbable event that Hamid Karzai delivers on his promises of better governance. but its political risks can be minimized by mobilizing regional support for the political containment of the Taliban.29 WITHDRAWAL SOLVENCY: TIMETABLE cont'd 5. 6. 30. for the military neutralization of Afghanistan. What is needed is a major United Nations diplomatic initiative designed to get Afghanistan's regional neighbors to join in setting a disengagement timetable and to share responsibility for preventing a Taliban return to power in Kabul. accessed 4-18-09. NEED A WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE -.middle-east-online. A commitment to categorical disengagement has long been demanded by Taliban leaders as the condition for negotiations. Figuring out what that treaty should say and constructing a timetable to meet those conditions should be the next step in Afghanistan.a timeframe that New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman bandied about so freely in Iraq that guesstimates like McChrystal's became known as "Friedman Units" -.IS ONLY WAY TO STABILIZE THE SITUATION Selig Harrison.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. It would test whether they are ready for the local peace deals that the Obama administration appears prepared to accept. Institute for Policy Studies. . in short. negotiations must include a wide range of Afghans. But with NATO partners. Center for International Policy. 12-25-09." YES! MAGAZINE. France. this option should be examined more closely.they imply an interminable series of indefinite extensions. say. beyond warning that the next 12-18 months are critical -. Director. The first and most important effect of a timetable would be to disarm the Taliban's argument that the "occupiers" will never leave.yesmagazine. www. accessed 4-18-10. It promises that at some point the war in Afghanistan will end with a negotiated peace treaty. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has rejected outright a timetable for withdrawal. The timetable should provide not only for the early withdrawal of all US combat forces within. Asia Program.com/english/?id=36363. It should set the stage. such a withdrawal timetable would be desirable and will become increasingly inescapable. 10-1-09.com . TIMETABLE WILL FORCE THE TALIBAN TO THE TABLE Erik Leaver. Given the Karzai government's lack of legitimacy and the relative political strength of the Taliban. "How to Exit Afghanistan.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan." MIDDLE EAST ONLINE. "How to Exit Afghanistan.000 more US troops will not lead to the early disengagement from the Afghan quagmire envisaged by President Obama.oneparadigm. Britain. three years but also for the termination of US military access to air bases in Afghanistan within five years. or will insist on power-sharing in Kabul as the price of peace. With the Taliban growing steadily stronger.

The Karzai government exists only because the US created and sustained it. she argues.com . And over 1. and it's not staying in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons." YES! MAGAZINE. accessed 4-9-10. 1-5-10. those who want democracy and human rights in Afghanistan. Three million Afghans have fled their country.to stop attacking and killing large numbers of civilians. close-in fighting creates more American casualties than bombing suspected enemy locations. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. WITHDRAWAL WILL IMPROVE THE HUMANITARIAN SITUATION -. But Malaila Joya. Sadly. work locally. "It's easier to fight one enemy than two.progressive. the Taliban is growing more popular because it is seen as the most visible group taking on the foreign occupiers.yesmagazine.harvard. It is unrealistic that even with 60. the war in Afghanistan has been in crisis. emphasize social and economic reconstruction. and 40 percent lives below the poverty line." she says. and myriad failures to win popular support. accessed 4-8-10. what exactly do we owe them? First of all. Agricultural production is at its lowest since the war began.WE ARE SUPPORTING A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND KILLING A LOT OF CIVILIANS Jon Wiener. http://hir. As U. that the United States cannot completely defeat or eradicate the deeply entrenched presence of the Taliban in Afghanistan with a short-term campaign. . and religious pluralism. only 23 percent of the population has access to clean drinking water. The fact is." DISSENT. "The Best Argument for the Afghan War -." They have not been doing this for nine years. 10-1-09.and What's Wrong with It." THE PROGRESSIVE. Life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44 years.S. the sacrifices these solders made have not resulted in better conditions for Afghans on the ground. we also owe it to the Afghans to fight a different kind of war -.php?id=318.S." That means the US military must "stop killing civilians. partly because that kind of careful. "Obama's Muddle Path in Afghanistan. The United States did not enter Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons. This year has proven to be the most deadly for U. NATO allies withdrawing from the battlefield. Walzer is hopeful that Obama has "replaced the people who did everything wrong with people who are trying to do everything right. If the United States were to leave.000 more US soldiers deployed that America will be able to prop up the Afghan government.org/wx112509.html.org/online. Peace and stability in Afghanistan require political negotiations with the Taliban and sustained humanitarian development. it would expose the Taliban as the reactionary force that it is. According to a UN threat assessment. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. there is little progress to be shown. education. accessed 4-9-09. 12-21-09." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW.php?page=article&id=1919. Right now. the leading feminist in Afghanistan. 11-25-09. www. according to the United Nations. she says. If we accept the obligations argument. however. HUMAN RIGHTS/ANTI-TALIBAN ARGUMENTS DO NOT JUSTIFY OCCUPATION Tyler Moselle. 2. If we accept the argument that we have incurred an obligation to protect democratic activists in Afghanistan. disown corrupt officials. Institute for Policy Studies. Humanitarians may counter that the United States should not allow even parts of Afghanistan to fall to the hands of the Taliban for the sake of women. we owe it to them not to support an undemocratic government there. We are told by "humanitarian" proponents of the war that we need to be there to prevent the Taliban from taking over again and reimposing its hideous oppression of women. urges the United States to withdraw its troops. history instructor. The way we have been fighting the war creates more enemies than are killed. "How to Exit Afghanistan. and coalition troops since the war began.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan. 4. and allow the people of Afghanistan a chance to fight for their own freedom. and Pakistan's tribal areas under increasing influence from the Taliban and al-Qaeda. despite massive election fraud. For years.edu/index. monumental corruption. the situation looks worse than ever.dissentmagazine. UC-Irvine. "WE OWE IT TO THEM" DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE OCCUPATION -. OCCUPATION HAS DONE LITTLE TO BENEFIT THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS OF THE PEOPLE Erik Leaver.AFGHANS WILL RISE UP AND DEFEND THEMSELVES Matthew Rothschild.500 Afghan civilians died in the first six months of 2009.oneparadigm. What's more. www. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. 3. the resurgence of the Taliban as a political power. But now with a failed Afghan election. are fighting two enemies: the Taliban and the United States. and NATO troops start the ninth year of war. But let's be clear. 40 percent of Afghanistan is today either Taliban-controlled or at high risk for insurgent attacks.30 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "HUMAN RIGHTS/AFGHAN POPULATION" 1. accessed 4-18-10. former Acting Executive Director. www. She also points out the women are not faring very well in Afghanistan right now under Karzai.

Afghanistan should be the very last place where we are a land-based meddler. yet they claim it is ultimately worth waging because a withdrawal would boost jihadism globally and make America look weak. OUR MILITARY MIGHT IS SO GREAT THAT WITHDRAWING WOULD DO NOTHING TO DECREASE OUR INFLUENCE Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. 5.and wiser -. much less hoping to do so on a permanent basis. 9-14-09." That's an argument for getting out as quickly and prudently as we can. trying to stay indefinitely while accomplishing little would appear even worse." FOREIGN POLICY. http://walt. foreign policy analyst. concede that the war in Central Asia will be long. 3. expensive. despite our best efforts. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. eroding support for our presence among the population. www. Columbia University. Again. credibility will be damaged far more if we squander another trillion dollars in Afghanistan and end up with a degraded and demoralized military and a population that is truly sick of overseas involvements. Be that as it may. "Withdrawal without Winning?" FOREIGN POLICY. 4. Perhaps the most important argument against the "withdrawal is weak-kneed" meme is that America's military roams the planet. International Relations. the chief beneficiaries of success will be China (and to a lesser extent Russia and India). STAYING TOO LONG HAS FAR WORSE REPUTATIONAL EFFECTS Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. September 14. The military will appear bogged down. and many others. accessed 3-5-10.cato.S. Thus. 2009. Overall. Adlai E." Needless to say.com/posts/2009/09/14/withdrawal_without_winning. of course. faces no peer competitor. Who exactly is going to lose faith in us.S. But if it does." CATO WHITE PAPER. helping the strategic ambitions of the Chinese and others. But America also looks weak if it remains in the region too long.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. Stevenson Professor of International Affairs. Unfortunately. November/December 2009.for fighting in Afghanistan? Of course if we withdraw and then we or our allies suffer a major terrorist attack many people will blame Obama. In fact." CATO WHITE PAPER. WITHDRAWAL WILL NOT UNDERMINE U.31 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "LEADERSHIP/CREDIBILITY" 1. the strategy aimless. we appear weak -even though America is responsible for almost half of the world's military spending.S. is a losing strategy. FAILURE WILL HURT OUR REPUTATION EVEN MORE Stephen M. and this is a political argument that must weigh more heavily with the White House than it does with policy analysts. accessed 3-5-10. Professor. And trying to pacify all of Afghanistan. controls the skies and space. A third but subsidiary argument is that withdrawal would undermine American credibility around the world. Former national security adviser Henry Kissinger. and.foreignpolicy. foreign policy analysts. whether we withdraw or whether we stay. security than would withdrawal.oneparadigm. even though the best scholarly studies of reputation and credibility have found that past behavior doesn't have much effect on future credibility.php?pub_id=10533. If the issue is preventing U. accessed 4-9-10. STAYING TOO LONG WILL BE SPUN BY AL QAEDA AS A SYMPTOM OF AMERICAN WEAKNESS Malou Innocent. would American appear more resolute -. the fact that this is an echo of Vietnam does not make it wrong. al Qaeda can twist our choice into a victory. Harvard. If we withdraw. accessed 4-9-10. if leaving would make America look weak. remaining in Afghanistan is more likely to tarnish America's reputation and undermine U. Council on Foreign Relations scholar Stephen Biddle. "Another Afghan Counterfactual.com . the contention that America would appear "weak" after withdrawing from Afghanistan is ludicrous. Nonetheless. military operations will continue to kill Afghan civilians. http://www.cato. caught up in internal Islamic conflict. pursuing a losing strategy would not vindicate their sacrifice. 10-7-09. But what we've invested in the Afghanistan mission could all fall apart whether we withdraw tomorrow or 20 years from now.foreignpolicy.html. can project its power to the most inaccessible corners of the globe. which could yet descend into civil war. America is responsible for almost half of the world's military spending and can project its power around the globe. and wields one of the planet's largest nuclear arsenals. http://www. This is an familiar line of argument. 2009.php?pub_id=10533. and what are they going to do differently? Much could depend on the course of events in other countries. the main thrust of Kaplan's piece is well worth pondering. that's not an argument for "seeking the middle ground. He notes that past empires declined "by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions. Second.cato. . He points out that while the United States is doing the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. 2. CREDIBILITY Robert Jervis. http://afpak.com/posts/2009/10/07/another_afghan_counterfactual. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. September 14. accessed 4-15-10.org/pub_display. and wields one of the planet's largest nuclear arsenals. and risky. Cato Institute. foreign policy analysts. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. but it does seem to me much less plausible than the other arguments.org/pub_display. bureaucratic inertia and a misplaced conception of Washington's moral obligations (an argument that more often than not legitimizes America's military occupation of a foreign people) threaten to trap the United States in Afghanistan for decades. soldiers from having died in vain.S. especially Iraq. Walt. one could just as easily argue that U." And his conclusion is right on the money: "history suggests that over time we can more easily preserve our standing in the world by using naval and airpower from a distance when intervening abroad.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.

the Khmer Rouge never would have arisen to take power without the American war. accessed 4-9-10. Columbia University.wouldn't a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan have a similar effect?" . and worse.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. no other outcome was remotely possible in Vietnam. extended only as far as Laos and Cambodia. "As for the notion that a NATO departure will hurt moderates and empower jihadists in the Muslim world -. Moreover. http://www. Chair. What is the justification for NATO's war now? To avert a twenty-first century cascade of dominoes? One hears: "We can't leave because leaving would empower jihadis.com .oneparadigm.php?id=305.32 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "LEADERSHIP/CREDIBILITY" cont'd 6." But this argument is absurd -.dissentmagazine. "Getting Out of Afghanistan. what was originally a just war of self-defense against al-Qaeda -. The domino theory was a fraud -. Should the United States have stayed in Lebanon in 1983? As Michael Cohen has aptly asked.indeed. 10-13-09.a rhetorical gesture comparable to the efforts of American presidents from Eisenhower through Nixon to not be the one who "lost" Vietnam. PhD Program. Staying in order not to "lose" is not a worthy purpose.org/online. US OCCUPATION HAS THE EXACT SAME REPUTATIONAL EFFECTS Todd Gitlin.the dominoes." DISSENT. Communication.has devolved into an incoherent morass where the case for necessity is unconvincing. In the case of Afghanistan. such as they were. a "war of necessity" -.

pdf. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. The West cannot properly fix this problem with more military force. knows where the weapons are and is confident in their security is just outright lying to you. Thus. bomb or drone attack. 10-1-09. accessed 4-18-10. They argue that Pakistan supported the Taliban and would support them again to overthrow a democratic. Pakistan is the 170 million person nation on the verge of chaos. And our friends in Kabul are running such a bogus government that it is unlikely they will prove to be a useful aid in such matters anytime in the foreseeable future. a foreign occupation provides stimulus to violent extremism and every missile. accessed 4-18-10. OCCUPATION WILL NOT ASSUAGE PAKISTAN -. Such criticism assumes that an increased US military presence in the region will be able to destroy and disrupt the Taliban to the point that they are no longer a major sanctuary for trans-national terrorism.S. if Afghanistan is only relevant as far as it can help deal with threats in Pakistan and it can't really help very much with those. Pakistan is a critically important nation but escalating the war in Afghanistan to support a weak Pakistani government is like injecting malignant cells into a cancer patient. this overlooks the fact that Pakistan has deep tensions with India and has cultivated Islamist groups and insurgents in Kashmir as a tool to undermine their post-Colonial enemy.html. The Center's reasoning conveniently ignores the obvious fact that the Afghan war and occupation are largely responsible for the deterioration of security in Pakistan. it is not the cure. we have spent eight years proving that we can't really do that. a country careening toward the possibility of being divided by civil conflict." FOREIGN POLICY." HOMELAND SECURITY TODAY. But the reality is given the terrain in the mountains on the border.harvard. They also argue that Western forces fighting the Taliban have pushed them from Afghanistan into Pakistan and stirred up Islamist networks and anger against the Pakistani government for acquiescing to the West.com/news/1/3985-seven-reasons-why-obama-is-wrong-on-afghanistan. For sure the biggest security threat in the region is not Afghanistan but Pakistan. Pakistan is the nuclear threat.hks.CANNOT DEFEAT THE TALIBAN.pacificfreepress. "Seven Reasons: Why Obama Is Wrong on Afghanistan. STAYING WILL NOT STABILIZE PAKISTAN -. The core of the threat is Pakistan's nuclear arsenals and anyone tells you the U. killing innocent civilians and enemies alike with seeming impunity. it is actually not that important. HAS OTHER CONFLICTS WITH INDIA Tyler Moselle. This was a predictable outcome yet the White House warlords in the Bush administration ignored it. accessed 4-8-10. OUR PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN CAN DO VERY LITTLE TO STABILIZE PAKISTAN David Rothkopf. http://www.OUR OCCUPATION IS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM PACIFIC FREE PRESS. 2. http://rothkopf. www. Afghanistan is only relevant relative to Pakistan. As the Soviets learned before us. 10-16-09.com/posts/2009/10/16/afghanistan_is_just_not_that_important.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/Moselle_HSToday_20091001. further fuels the fires of hatred. .Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. 3. As a nuclear power. Pakistan is the home to terror.33 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "PAKISTAN STABILITY" 1.com .foreignpolicy. Does that make Afghanistan important? Only if we can use it as a base from which we can contain the threats posed from within Pakistan. Also." 4-6-09.oneparadigm. The war is the disease. "Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan. "Afghanistan Is Just Not that Important. Critics also argue that Pakistan's foreign and national security strategy of "strategic depth" relies on Afghanistan functioning as a strong Pakistani ally against India. Western-friendly Afghanistan with links to Hindu India and Shi'a Iran.

America's objective should be to neutralize the parties responsible for the atrocities committed on 9/11." HUFFINGTON POST. Here is a creative rewriting of history. 94 Foreign policy. The United States should begin a prompt withdrawal of most of its military forces from Afghanistan.S.com . THERE IS NOT A SECURITY THREAT IN THE REGION THAT MERITS A LONG-TERM U. Cato Institute. http://www.S. http://www. December 2.then.that is. September 14. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country. 2001 attacks "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but. foreign policy analysts. Denying a sanctuary to terrorists that seek to attack the United States does not require Washington to pacify the entire country or sustain a large. General James Jones. forces cannot achieve a knockout blow against al Qaeda. Additionally. long-term military presence in Central Asia.. 2009. financed and armed the Mujahideen (including AQ and Osama bin Laden) and our actions over the last seven and a half years have only buttressed their influence. .NATO coalition can carry out the focused and limited mission of training Afghan security forces. They argue that a power vacuum in the wake of an American withdrawal. The region holds little intrinsic strategic value to the United States. Unlike some analysts in Washington. First. WITHDRAWAL WILL NOT CAUSE REGIONAL INSTABILITY -. 2009. Our security is not at stake in Afghanistan.C." We don't need 130. The U. If Obama's second surge into Afghanistan is similar to the one made in Iraq -. in apartments in Germany. And finally.cato. www. and NATO troops remain in the region.pacificfreepress. Third. THERE IS NO SECURITY THREAT THAT JUSTIFIES AN AMERICAN OCCUPATION Malou Innocent. the warlords of Afghanistan predate the Soviet occupation by centuries. The United States should not go beyond that objective by combating a localized insurgency or drifting into an open-ended occupation and nation-building effort. after the Soviet withdrawal the Taliban imposed order and stability with quiet support from its neighbors and the United States.cato. accessed 4-18-10. the National Intelligence Office for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005 notes. As the president's national security adviser.com/news/1/3985-seven-reasons-why-obama-is-wrong-on-afghanistan.html." 3. Second. as long as U. D.php?pub_id=10533. a rapid infusion of U.org/pub_display. no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.collection in the region should continue. "A Costly Mistake. no bases. as the young John Kerry alluded to more than thirty years ago. Washington needs to "define success down" with respect to its objectives in Afghanistan." 4-6-09.S. leading to regional destabilization.S. Morale within the all-volunteer military will decline if public support at home continues to wane. would empower local warlords and holy warriors.000 soldiers to chase down 100 al Qaeda fighters. we implanted.oneparadigm. our president is asking thousands of young men and women in uniform to sacrifice their lives for an occupation that not even he fully accepts and has already labeled a mistake. the preparations most important to the September 11. I vehemently disagreed with those who called Afghanistan "Obama's War. foreign policy analyst. accessed 3-5-10. but even the best training might not produce a fully functioning and independent army or police force. noted in October. 2. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan.S. like that following the Soviet occupation. intelligence.php?pub_id=11027.OUR PRESENCE IS THE MOST DE-STABILIZING FACTOR NOW PACIFIC FREE PRESS. "Seven Reasons: Why Obama Is Wrong on Afghanistan. troops followed by a painfully slow withdrawal -. so as not to repeat the mistakes made prior to 9/11. they should adopt a pragmatic approach to drug policy by not alienating Afghan farmers and non-Islamist power brokers. rather." CATO WHITE PAPER.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.. "the al Qaeda presence [in Afghanistan] is very diminished. We disrupted that stability with our actions and we continue to be the most destabilizing force in the region today. accessed 3-5-10." But today I can no longer defend that position. And as Paul Pillar. hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States. like domestic politics. and America's security will not be endangered even if U.34 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "REGIONAL INSTABILITY" 1. is the art of the attainable. OCCUPATION Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter.org/pub_display.

4. that broadly accepted policy prescription falsely conflates the creation of a stable government in Afghanistan with protecting America's national security." 1-14-09. In the US Mr Obama and Mr Gates imply that the insurgents have such shallow roots that they can be largely defeated in 18 months so US troops can start to withdraw.pdf. the Taliban failed to conquer all the country. KARZAI WILL NOT COLLAPSE SANS A SURGE Tyler Moselle. "All of these things.php?pub_id=11627.S. The likelihood of the Taliban taking over the whole of Afghanistan has been systematically exaggerated.TALIBAN DOES NOT WANT TO STRIKE US Malou Innocent. "A Wider and Unnecessary War: The March of Folly." Given the flagrant graft and corruption of many Afghan leaders.com/patrick12072009. Harvard University.cato. Karzai needs more support but less visible American presence. Islamist extremist groups indigenous to this region threaten the Afghan government." said President Obama.hks. presents a bigger threat to genuine American interests than those groups themselves can pose. http://counterpunch. http://www. The Karzai Government Will Fall Apart Without a Surge False. especially since there is little assurance that 100. Misapplication of the 1990's model. "6 Fallacies of a Surge in Afghanistan. The reality of Afghanistan is wholly different from the picture painted by Mr Obama in the US or Gordon Brown in the UK. Kennedy School of Government." HOMELAND SECURITY TODAY. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. http://www.35 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "TALIBAN TAKEOVER" 1. However.S. 10-1-09. At one moment they are a movement of immense power on the verge of seizing power in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the possibility that they might soon have control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The insurgents have no support beyond the Pashtun community to which 42 per cent of Afghans belong. They are opposed by the 58 per cent who are Tajiks. Uzbeks and Hazara and many of their own Pashtun community.to threaten the sovereignty or physical security of the United States. THE RISK OF A TALIBAN TAKEOVER IS HIGHLY EXAGGERATED Patrick Cockburn.S.oneparadigm. rather than America.THE AFGHAN PUBLIC WILL REJECT THE TALIBAN IN THE EVENT OF WITHDRAWAL Tyler Moselle." DAILY CALLER.000 foreign troops can capture and kill more insurgents than their presence helps to recruit. author.html. Washington's continued fixation on groups that threaten Afghanistan. FALL OF KARZAI'S GOVERNMENT WON'T HURT THE U. Critics of a troop drawdown argue that this was the same strategy the US pursued in Afghanistan in the early 1990s but they overlook the fact that the Taliban at the time were a young and relatively unknown political movement.com . airpower as a propaganda victory for insurgents. Many Afghans have direct.edu/cchrp/editorial/2009/SixFallacies_Moselle. In an unannounced visit to Afghanistan this past weekend. President Barack Obama urged Afghan authorities to rein in corruption and enforce the rule of law. Karzai already complained of civilian casualties resulting from U. not the American government. But the next moment Mr Brown is claiming that the Taliban has almost no support among Afghans. But Americans should not equate the fall of that regime with "losing" to al-Qaida. 2. it may sound intuitively appealing for the president to push for better governance in that country. they do not merit the strategic obsession that they currently receive. 3-29-10." COUNTERPUNCH. December 7. Even when backed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia before the US intervention of 2001. accessed 4-8-10. foreign policy analyst. American and British exponents of a military escalation or 'the surge' in Afghanistan opportunistically expound two wholly contradictory views of Taliban strength.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/Moselle_HSToday_20091001. accessed 4-8-10. accessed 4-9-10. -. "Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan. harsh experience of life under the Taliban and would oppose such a movement from coming back into power unlike the 1990s when many Afghans passively supported the Taliban to bring peace during the civil war. U. www. Cato Institute. 2009. .S. "end up resulting in an Afghanistan that is more prosperous and more secure.let alone the capacity -. Because these radical groups lack the ambition -. THE NEG IS WRONG -. The uncomfortable truth is that without indefinite foreign protection.harvard. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. accessed 3-4-10. U. the Government of Afghanistan would probably fall to the Afghan Taliban.org/pub_display. 3.pdf. support for Karzai must remain behind the scenes so he can cultivate political will for a unified government.hks.harvard. Violent. Research Associate. "Al-Qaida Should Be Main Focus in Afghanistan.

whatever he may say. Arab. INTERESTS WOULD NOT BE THREATENED EVEN BY A HOSTILE REGIME -.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.html.a transnational jihadist organization -. Ergo.php?pub_id=10533. 6. British. For that matter. EVEN A TALIBAN TAKEOVER WOULD NOT THREATEN U. The problem with this second argument is that Afghanistan already is a failed state. "A Self-Promoting and Permanent Occupation? Obama's Shameful War. To expect such a situation to somehow coalesce into something resembling a European nation-state is simply ludicrous. the current Christmas ramp-up in the war announced by Obama has nothing to do with 9-11. nothing to do with combating terrorism.oneparadigm. until he was driven out of power and ultimately hung by forces. including the Taliban) organized and armed by the CIA. September 14. But the Taliban and other parochial fighters pose little threat to the sovereignty or physical security of the United States. for all their medieval fundamentalism.THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN PACIFY THE COUNTRY Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. foreign policy analysts. Mongol. December 8. . (the very things the US says it wants to do). 2009. The United States should not go beyond that objective by combating a regional insurgency or drifting into an open-ended occupation and nation-building mission. accessed 3-5-10. 2009.S.cato.com . and Soviet invaders. no occupying power has ever successfully conquered it. America's objective has been to neutralize the parties responsible for the atrocities committed on 9/11.com/lindorff12082009. the worst-case scenario -. In fact.org/pub_display.cato. 2009.an indigenous Pashtun-dominated movement. the Communist leader who had the country largely unified and who was instituting reforms like protecting the rights of women. Many policymakers who call for an indefinite military presence in Afghanistan conflate bin Laden's network -.the resurrection of the Taliban's fundamentalist regime -.with the Taliban -. CANNOT GET ANY WORSE UNDER THE TALIBAN Dave Lindorff. There's a reason why it has been described as the "graveyard of empires. Turk. http://counterpunch. the only commonality uniting the various ethnic groups within Afghanistan actually is religion -." CATO WHITE PAPER. especially since the insurgency is largely confined to predominately Pashtun southern and eastern provinces and is unlikely to take over the country as a whole. and America's security will not be endangered even if an oppressive regime takes over a contiguous fraction of Afghan territory. Most important. Moreover. accessed 3-4-10. foreign policy analysts. Greek. AFGHANISTAN IS ALREADY A FAILED STATE. What about the bogie-man of a so-called "failed state"? Obama said a failed state in Afghanistan could mean a return of Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations.does not threaten America's sovereignty or physical security. U. Afghanistan has been a failed state since the overthrow of Mohammed Najibullah. it risks meeting a similar fate. with different ethic groups occupying different regions of the country largely operating like autonomous little countries. From its invasion by Genghis Khan and his two-million strong Mongol hordes to the superpower proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union. and nothing to do with protecting American security. The fear that the Taliban will take over a contiguous fraction of Afghan territory is not compelling enough of a rationale to maintain an indefinite. may have a significant edge in the nation-building game. Actually. Afghanistan's trade routes and land-locked position in the middle of the region have for centuries rendered it vulnerable to invasion by external powers. etc. Central Asia holds little intrinsic strategic value to the United States. as we saw in the 1990s.they're nearly all Islamic -which suggests that the Taliban. Although Afghanistan has endured successive waves of Persian. large-scale military presence in the region." COUNTERPUNCH. accessed 3-5-10. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. 7. INTERESTS Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. http://www.36 WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "TALIBAN TAKEOVER" cont'd 5. the truth is that Afghanistan has always been something less than a real nation. building roads. journalist.org/pub_display. September 14. Afghanistan serves as the crossroads of Central Asia. http://www.php?pub_id=10533." CATO WHITE PAPER.S. if the definition of a failed state is one in which there is no effective central government." and unless America scales down its objectives.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 37

WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "WOMEN'S RIGHTS"
1. THE LOT OF AFGHAN WOMEN HAS NOT IMPROVED UNDER THE OCCUPATION Richard Tanter, Senior Research Associate, Nautillus Institute for Security and Sustainability, "The Coming Catastrophe: the American War in Afghanistan and Pakistan," JAPAN FOCUS, 11-13-08, http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard-Tanter/2948, accessed 4-6-09. Hamid Karzai's government, elected in December 2004, and facing re-election in 2009, is caught between the United States and its coalition partners on the one hand, and his domestic allies on the other. The writ of the government extends little beyond Kabul. It has repeatedly protested against American military tactics, especially air strikes, and against the presumption that more foreign troops will solve the country's problems. One of the key issues driving international support for the original invasion was the appalling situation of women and girls under the Taliban regime. Yet despite constitutional changes, and many examples of extraordinary courage, even a cursory scrutiny of reports from the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and other Afghan organisations makes appallingly clear that the March 2008 International Women's Day communique by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) is no exaggeration: "In reality Afghan women are still burning voraciously in the inferno of fundamentalism. Women are exchanged with dogs, girls are gang-raped, men in the Jehadi-dominated society kill their wives viciously and violently, burn them by throwing hot water, cut off their nose and toes, innocent women are stoned to death and other heinous crimes are being committed. But the mafia government of Mr. Karzai is tirelessly trying to conciliate with the criminals and award medals to those who should be prosecuted for their crimes and lootings." A few months earlier, RAWA made clear its view of the consequences of the occupation for women: "The US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan." RAWA's views are not the only ones to be considered, but at the very least, they make clear the complexity and finally political character of the ongoing assaults on women in Afghanistan. 2. THE U.S.-SPONSORED GOVERNMENT IS ONLY GOING TO OPPRESS WOMEN Johnathan M. Finegold Catalan, "National Wrecking in Afghanistan," MISES DAILY, 3-17-10, http://mises.org/daily/4179, accessed 4-6-10. Current US policy in Afghanistan is ensuring the creation of a big bureaucracy dedicated to the oppression of the Afghan populace. Malalai Joya, an Afghan woman elected to -- and then banned from -- parliament, has been a vocal critic of US policies in her war-torn country. She has brought attention to the fact that a large portion of Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul is composed of warlords and religious extremists, many of whom committed crimes against humanity during the civil war of the 1990s. In effect, the United States is returning Afghanistan to the way it was before the 2001 invasion; in place of the Taliban, the new despots will be "warlords and drug traffickers." Professor Berman's strategy for Afghanistan only promotes disaster. While many of Louis XIV's mercantilist policies were eventually rescinded, this occurred only because the France of the 17th century enjoyed a fairly large body of wealthy merchantmen with an interest in the struggle for freedom. The poor of Afghanistan, who make up the large majority of the population, do not enjoy the advantage of having a similar social middle class willing to pressure the Afghan government into being more business friendly. As a result, Berman's strategy is bound to lead to dictatorship, not long-term peace and development. 3. THE STATUS OF MANY WOMEN HAS NOT IMPROVED UNDER THE OCCUPATION Campaign for Peace and Democracy, "We Call for the United States to End Its Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan!" 2009, www.cpdweb.org/stmts/1014/stmt.shtml, accessed 4-6-10. Afghanistan was a devastated nation even before 2001, due to the destruction wrought by the Soviet occupation and the subsequent civil war. Since then the Afghan people have endured eight more years of war and misery. Many Afghans felt a sense of liberation when the Taliban was driven from power, but it soon became clear that one set of oppressors had been replaced by another: by the warlords and drug traffickers of the former Northern Alliance and the U.S./NATO occupiers. The Taliban's misogyny was vicious and extreme, but the situation of women remains horrific. Although a large number of Afghan girls did go to primary school after 2001 and some did get elected to the parliament, the vast majority of women are still confined to their homes, unable to work, too fearful to attend school and forced into marriages, often as children. Many women who would prefer not to wear their burqas are afraid to be seen without them. According to Afghan feminist leader Malalai Joya, "Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation." President Karzai signed a disgraceful law earlier this year, applying to Shia women, that gives a husband the right to withdraw basic maintenance from his wife, including food, if she refuses to obey his sexual demands. It grants guardianship of children exclusively to their fathers and grandfathers, requires women to get permission from their husbands to work, and effectively allows a rapist to avoid prosecution by paying "blood money" to his victim.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 38

WITHDRAWAL DESIRABLE: ANSWERS TO: "WOMEN'S RIGHTS" cont'd
4. ANY GAINS FOR GENDER EQUALITY ARE MERE TOKENS -- HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVERSED Sonali Kolhatkar, journalist and co-director, Afghan Women's Mission, "A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War," ZNET, November 4, 2009, http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23057, accessed 3-4-10. One of the original justifications for the war in 2001 that seemed to resonate most with liberal Americans was the liberation of Afghan women from a misogynist regime. This is now being resurrected as the following: If the U.S. forces withdraw, any gains made by Afghan women will be reversed and they'll be at the mercy of fundamentalist forces. In fact, the fear of abandoning Afghan women seems to have caused the greatest confusion and paralysis in the antiwar movement. What this logic misses is that the United States chose right from the start to sell out Afghan women to its misogynist fundamentalist allies on the ground. The U.S. armed the Mujahadeen leaders in the 1980s against the Soviet occupation, opening the door to successive fundamentalist governments including the Taliban. In 2001, the United States then armed the same men, now called the Northern Alliance, to fight the Taliban and then welcomed them into the newly formed government as a reward. The American puppet president Hamid Karzai, in concert with a cabinet and parliament of thugs and criminals, passed one misogynist law after another, appointed one fundamentalist zealot after another to the judiciary, and literally enabled the downfall of Afghan women's rights over eight long years. Any token gains have been countered by setbacks. For example, while women are considered equal to men in Afghanistan's constitution, there have been vicious and deadly attacks against women's rights activists, the legalization of rape within marriage in the Shia community, and a shockingly high rate of women's imprisonment for so-called honor crimes -- all under the watch of the U.S. occupation and the government we are protecting against the Taliban. Add to this the unacceptably high number of innocent women and children killed in U.S. bombing raids, which has also increased the Taliban's numbers and clout, and it makes the case that for eight years the United States has enabled the oppression of Afghan women and only added to their miseries. 5. GRASSROOTS AND FEMINIST ACTIVISTS WANT THE U.S. TO WITHDRAW Sonali Kolhatkar, journalist and co-director, Afghan Women's Mission, "A Call for Clarity on the Afghanistan War," ZNET, November 4, 2009, http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/23057, accessed 3-4-10. This is why grassroots political and feminist activists have called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from their country. After eight years of American-enabled oppression, they would rather fight for their liberation without our help. The anti-fundamentalist progressive organization, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), has called for an immediate end to the war. Echoing their call is independent dissident member of Parliament Malalai Joya, who tells her story in her new political memoir, A Woman Among Warlords. The members of RAWA and women like Joya are openly targeted by the U.S.-backed Afghan government for their feminism and political activism. RAWA and Joya have worked on the ground, risking their lives for political change and echo the vast majority of poor and ordinary Afghan women. It's they whom we ought to listen to and express solidarity with. If American progressives think they know better than Afghanistan's brave feminist activists on how liberation can be achieved, we're just as guilty as the U.S. government for subjecting them to the mercy of women-hating criminals.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 39

LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: ECONOMIC OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS
1. CURRENT POLICY IS A FAILURE -- IS DRIVING A BUDGET DEFICIT THAT WILL WRECK OUR ECONOMY Malou Innocent, foreign policy analyst, Cato Institute, "A Costly Mistake," HUFFINGTON POST, December 2, 2009, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11027, accessed 3-5-10. Whether the rationale for prolonging the operation is to expunge al Qaeda, gain greater ease of access to Central Asia's energy reserves, or improve the fate of the Afghan people, Americans don't seem to buy it. A substantial portion of the American public is against sending more troops, the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress are against sending more troops, and a number of prominent conservatives are against sending more troops. Why? Partly because these patriotic Americans realize that our brave and highly-dedicated soldiers are not trained to be nation builders or policemen. But these critics also recognize, in lieu of the current economic recession, that the Taliban and al Qaeda cannot destroy the United States, but our own reckless spending can. As the Independent Forum notes: "The US is running a $1.4 trillion budget deficit...US national debt has now surpassed the $12 trillion mark...The Afghanistan War has already cost about $250 billion and is steadily climbing...[and] since Obama was elected, the US Dollar has lost about 10% of its value, and is approaching its all-time record low set back in early 2008. Since 2002, the US Dollar has plummeted by about 37%." Perhaps the most troubling aspect of our present war, aside from the lack of clearly defined and achievable objectives, is the lack of public support at home. As General Fred Weyand, the last U.S. commander in Vietnam, told Pulitzer prize-winning author Stanley Karnow: "The American army is really a people's army in the sense that it belongs to the American people. ... When the army is committed the American people are committed; when the American people lose their commitment, it is futile to try to keep the army committed." 2. SPENDING IN AFGHANISTAN IS DRIVING US TOWARD NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY -- SHOULD WITHDRAW Ron Paul, U.S. Representative, "Support the War Instead of the Troops," Campaign for Liberty, 3-16-10, www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=693, accessed 4-8-10. The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 in the aftermath of Vietnam. It was intended to prevent presidents from slipping this country so easily into unwinnable wars, wars with indistinct enemies and vague goals. Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect by literally legalizing undeclared wars for 90 days. In the case of Afghanistan, 90 days has stretched into nearly a decade. The original purpose of the initial authorization of force -- to pursue those responsible for the attacks on September 11 -- is no longer applicable. Al Qaeda has left Afghanistan; we are now pursuing the Taliban, who never attacked us. The Taliban certainly are not our friends, but the more of them we kill, the more their ranks grow and the stronger they become. Meanwhile, we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and accelerating our plunge toward national bankruptcy. Whose interests do we serve by continuing this exercise in futility? Osama Bin Laden has said many times that his strategy was to bankrupt America, by forcing us into protracted fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union learned this lesson the hard way; and ultimately was forced to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan in defeat and humiliation. This same fate may await us unless we rethink our policy and resist any escalation of our military efforts in Afghanistan. Our troops should be used for defending our country, making us safer and stronger at home- not for occupying foreign nations with no real strategy or objective. 3. WE NEED TO WITHDRAW TO PRESERVE OUR ECONOMY AND CREDIBILITY Erik Leaver, Institute for Policy Studies, "How to Exit Afghanistan," YES! MAGAZINE, 10-1-09, www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan, accessed 4-18-10. The alternative suggested by many of the earlier strategic reviews and now championed by Vice President Joe Biden, is to narrow the mission to focus on al-Qaeda and the Taliban with the more limited goal of stopping Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. This is the counter-terrorism strategy that President Bush pursued with little success. The problem with even this more limited objective is that neither NATO nor the United States could achieve it without staying in Afghanistan forever. Sending more troops and resources to George Bush's war has little chance of success. Even if it did succeed, such a strategy would likely further damage the U.S. economy, military, and our standing in the world in the process. Another option is needed on the table -- a clear and measurable timetable for withdrawal. A Plan to Avoid the Graveyard of Empires Afghanistan has often been called the "Graveyard of Empires." The reference applies to a much different time in history, but with no promising options on the table for ending the war, we need to make sure it doesn't become applicable once again. 4. WITHDRAWAL WILL GIVE POLITICAL COVER FOR CUTTING A BLOATED DEFENSE BUDGET David R. Francis, "Defense Budget: After Afghanistan and Iraq Withdrawal, a Peace Dividend?" CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, 3-29-10, http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100329/cm_csm/290228, accessed 4-6-10. If and when these wars wind down, the US may receive an even bigger peace dividend in the form of overall defense cuts. Huge federal budget deficits will force them. Right now, neither Republicans nor Democrats in Congress are inclined to make serious cuts for fear of being called weak on defense. Without a war, however, members of Congress, particularly Democrats, may begin asking hard questions about weapons programs. There's much to cut, says Christopher Hellman of the National Priorities Project in Northampton, Mass. He calls the defense budget "bloated." The Obama budget set 2011 defense spending at $739 billion. This amounts to 19 percent of total federal outlays. Carl Conetta, director of the Project on Defense Alternatives in Cambridge, Mass., suspects defense spending could be cut as low as $650 billion without seriously damaging American security needs. To trim the deficit, Mr. Obama called for a freeze in discretionary spending but exempted defense.

It's an income tax surcharge aimed mostly at the wealthy. Even LBJ didn't do that when he escalated the Vietnam War. To date. Obama acknowledged this when he announced his plan. At the same time.000.S. . eclipsing the costs of Iraq for the first time since 2003. can afford to fight two wars simultaneously under these revised circumstances. the U. the question before Congress is how to pay for this expansion of the conflict there. Beyond the human toll. Senior Fellow. It's a poor idea at this point. Policymakers in Washington are debating two questions: What is the proper mission for troops? Should the United States send additional soldiers? Yet there are more important questions to be asked: Is there a role for troops at this point at all? What does an exit strategy look like and when can we get there? 7. spending in Afghanistan is more per year than any other military spends on the planet so we're dumping a lot of resources into Afghanistan.asp?eventID=145.com .5 trillion over ten years. and I think it's politically perilous for any politician in a democracy to escalate a war that is already unpopular. to the point that there is no foreseeable method of paying back all the nation owes. accessed 4-18-10. House Democrats have already offered one plan. 10-1-09. 6." but he did not propose a plan to cover those costs.S. we now have a lot of domestic factors affecting U. possibly more.yesmagazine. "Can the U.S. accessed 4-18-10. www. Our national debt has grown to previously unimagined levels.org/events/transcript. Today. THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE Erik Leaver. policy.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. the U. is running a trillion-dollar annual budget deficit per year during a recession. "How to Exit Afghanistan. Now that President Barack Obama has announced his plan for a troop surge in Afghanistan. 12-9-09. The American public is war weary after two wars stretched out over many years. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.S. The interest costs alone will begin to consume much of the federal budget. editorial. Institute for Policy Studies.independent.40 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: ECONOMIC OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS cont'd 5. besides Afghanistan being a much harder nut to crack than Iraq.S. It is really questionable whether the U. www. Where will the money come from? The federal government is already running a substantial budget deficit.S. is spending $4 billion a month in Afghanistan. the war is placing a severe financial burden on the United States. will probably undertake an expensive healthcare program that will cost between $1 trillion and $2. has spent more than $220 billion in Afghanistan. and of course we're still racking up the bills in Iraq. STAYING IN AFGHANISTAN WILL COST US A TRILLION DOLLARS Ivan Eland. Even the hard-core deficit hawks in Washington acknowledge that raising the income tax during a recession would simply deepen and prolong the nation's economic difficulties. It's called the war tax. saying "we simply cannot afford to ignore the price of these wars. Now.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan. npg. The Afghan war is expected to cost another trillion dollars over the next ten years. the U." YES! MAGAZINE. but it will hit everyone with an income over $30.oneparadigm. The president's plans are expected to cost at least $30 billion a year more than the war there is already costing us. THE OCCUPATION WILL BE PAID FOR WITH A WAR TAX THAT WILL WRECK THE ECONOMY SPARTANBURG HERALD-JOURNAL. 2009. U. and not to mention the massive solvency problem looming over the Social Security and Medicare systems coming down the road. "How Do We Pay?" December 3. Over 90 pecent of that spending has been for the military.S.

or about 9. giving $35. According to Chaplains of two US battalions deployed on frontline in Afghanistan for nine months. The army has only 6. RESENTMENT. Their pay scale is very attractive. the blame for the inevitable defeat in Iraq will fall primarily on the army. 1. disclosed Capt Jeff Masengale of 10th Mountain Division.000. Of these 9. Many feel they are risking their lives for a futile mission. Troops of one of these battalions complained that they were given the mission in mid 2009 of securing Wardak province and then win allegiance of people there through development works and good governance. US soldiers are depressed and deeply disillusioned. Consequentially the army is short some 3.500 soldiers in the DEP as opposed to 28.000 in 2003.asiantribune. accessed 4-19-10.guardian. 3-14-10. accesed 4-19-10. Mental state of those on duty on scattered posts is worst since they feel scared.oneparadigm.000 to soldiers who enlist for two to six years. In 2007. www.000 to $40. shortening tours of enlistment and dipping into its delayed entry pool or DEP (recruits who have enlisted but have not reported to basic training). Even with these lower standards the army was forced to give moral waivers for problems with the law to more than 11% of the new recruits. www." GUARDIAN.000 people. "America's Overstretched Army.620 had felony arrests and convictions.41 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH NOW 1. Many are found broken down and weeping since the faceless enemy frustrates them. 9-12-07. Moreover. they do not cooperate and often lie and tend to protect Taliban.000 to captains who stay in and $20. Retention especially among officers completing their initial commitment is also down dramatically. Many have a sense of futility and anger about being there.com . . Since the American people support the war in Afghanistan much more than Iraq.000 captains and majors. 2. These recreations have failed to cheer them up. they found them locked in battle with Taliban.000 troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan so that they can replace the army as the dominant force in that theatre. West Point and ROTC graduates are getting out in numbers not seen in 30 years. They say the only ones who are less demoralized and retaining their composure are those working in offices and not in the field. it will be even more difficult for the army to recruit and retain the right people if it has to bear the burden of Iraq alone. They said troops in the field feel lost and do not know why they were there. Many suffer from mental disorders. playing indoor games and indulging in homo sexuality or raping US service women. It is also allowing people to enlist for as little as 15 months as opposed to the normal four years. OUR MILITARY IS OVERSTRETCHED AND FACING A RECRUITING CRISIS Lawrence Korb. since the likelihood of our prevailing in Afghanistan is so much greater than in Iraq. the army will spend more than $1bn in bonuses.co. To deal with this shortage the army is promoting virtually all the captains to majors (98%) and is promoting lieutenants to captains in 38 months as opposed to the normal 48 months.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Instead. Living conditions of US soldiers are very good.uk/commentisfree/2007/oct/12/americasoverstretchedarmy. They feel irritated that in their bid to help the population by giving them humanitarian assistance. Sleeplessness and bouts of anger are common." ASIAN TRIBUNE. "Declining Morale of US Troops in Afghanistan. each soldier drawing $7500 a month and costing US exchequer one million a year. Rape cases have shot up at an alarming rate. FEAR AND ANGER AMONG DEPLOYED SOLDIERS IS GROWING Asif Haroon Raja. Seeing their comrades blown up shatters them. Food is of high quality and in abundance. 2/87 Infantry Battalion and Captain Sam Rico of 4/25 Field Artillery regiment. To deal with this situation the army is spending large sums of money. Troops keep themselves engaged in recreation rooms. They are desperate to go back home to their families. and since the insurgency is so much larger in Iraq. tents are fitted with air-conditioners with hot and cold water facility and free internet. The army's problems will be compounded if the Marines can implement their plan to remove their 25. four times more than in 2003. three times more than it did in 2003.com/news/2010/03/14/declining-morale-us-troops-afghanistan.

The Army has had to reduce recruiting standards to meet its goals. troops deployed (regardless of whether they are in Iraq. The problem with simply redeploying forces is troop rotation. this does not account for the need to rotate the nearly 50. More troops in Afghanistan will not solve the problem. So if the total number of troops deployed between Iraq and Afghanistan (or elsewhere in the immediate region) stays constant.000 U.a period the military calls "dwell time.S.independent.com/articles/news/world/2009/01/16/obama-to-confront-limits-of-americas-overstretched-military. or anywhere else in the world except back home -.S. driving home what has long been conventional wisdom within the halls of the Pentagon: Shortages in the military ranks will be one of the chief national security challenges of the Barack Obama administration. Army and Marine Corps. Indeed.000 to 30.000 Army and Marine Corps soldiers in Iraq and another 34.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Carl Levin expressed serious misgivings about the troop escalation when the Afghan security force remains small and weak." 1-16-09. and other foreign coalition troops in Afghanistan. . Even if more troops could be found.000 might be enough to control the capital city of Kabul and keep Hamid Karzai ensconced there as the mayor. www.S.html.what amounts to a doubling of current U.oneparadigm. The build up also will put more strain on troops by giving them less time than hoped for at home.WILL SIMPLY SHIFT TROOPS FROM IRAQ.asp?id=2296. Afghanistan. McCain does not advocate a timetable for withdrawal. The first question is: where would troops for Afghanistan come from? The current Iraq deployment has already stretched U. "It seems to me that the large influx of U.S. With progress in Iraq still precarious and the war in Afghanistan growing ever more violent.independent. if the total number of U. it will need more troops. senior fellow. 640.S. though an additional 20. There." The Army had been moving toward giving two years of dwell time between each one-year tour. AFGHANISTAN SURGE MAKES IT WORSE US NEWS & WORLD REPORT. ESCALATION ONLY OVERSTRETCHES OUR MILITARY -.org/newsroom/article.S.S. another 20. August 13. http://www. Marines on street corners in Afghan villages. THERE ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH TROOPS TO SUSTAIN BIG DEPLOYMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN Charles Pena. The inconvenient truth is that much of the violence in Afghanistan has its origins in Pakistan. MILITARY IS OVERSTRETCHED.S.000 troops would be needed. there are approximately 147." Undersecretary of the Army Nelson Ford noted in a recent interview.S. Over 250. but they will also need to put expert-level logisticians in place to figure out how to supply this influx of soldiers and marines -. particularly after his anticipated approval of plans to send 30. This amounts to robbing Peter to pay Paul. 2. Obama would find troops by redeploying forces from Iraq as part of a deliberate withdrawal timetable. the strain placed on U. The rule of thumb is that for every unit deployed.and it is worth noting that Obama's Iraq withdrawal rhetoric has not been specific about bringing U.com/s/ap/20091202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan. military leaders warn that if the Pentagon is to continue to meet its responsibilities around the world. troops will not only be called upon to fight hard against increasingly sophisticated Taliban forces.usnews. forces home) remains the same.asp?id=2296. 3. the American military remains overburdened and. Additionally. which has become a sanctuary for both al Qaeda and the remnants of the Taliban. officials repeatedly point out. Nearly 50. accessed 3-5-10. force levels. "More Troops for Afghanistan?" The Independent Institute. ground troops deployed in Europe and the more than 35. combat troops will put more U.S. "Obama Confronts Limits of America's Overstretched Military. 2009. after back-to-back tours that are leaving a growing number of military families in shambles. which has a population of nearly 32 million people. 2008.000 in Afghanistan.S." December 2. Tours of duty in Iraq were reduced from 15 to 12 months only last spring. If history is a reliable benchmark. There are currently about 60.000 U.42 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS 1. accessed 3-4-10. But top U. http://news. staff.000 to 30. http://www.000 additional forces to Afghanistan. those demands will likely only grow greater under Obama's watch. with too few Afghan partners alongside them. STRAIN REMAINS Charles Pena. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL DEPLOYMENTS WILL ONLY FURTHER STRAIN OUR TROOPS ASSOCIATED PRESS." he said in his opening remarks of the hearing.org/newsroom/article. accessed 3-4-10. but he believes troops will become available based on success in Iraq.S. U. Mullen said supplying the extra forces for Afghanistan while there are still so many in Iraq will mean putting off for a couple of years the goal of lengthening the time they rest and retrain at home in between tours of duty -. "Gates: 'Severe Consequences' for Afghan Failure. more than 5 years into the conflict. 543. 4. Click here to find out more! It's hardly an alluring recruiting scenario. Committee chairman Sen. two more are needed to relieve troops in the field at reasonable intervals. which is nearly the size of the total active duty U. ground forces will not be relieved. accessed 4-19-10.000 soldiers have been forced into an involuntary extension of their military service through the use of stop-loss orders. Currently.with the vast majority going to Iraq and comprising as much as 40 percent of the total force there. ground forces thin.000 total troops are needed to sustain the deployment.com . U.000 in East Asia and the Pacific.000 members of the National Guard and Army Reserve have been deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom -. 2008.000 is probably not enough. August 13. dangerously overstretched. senior fellow. Troops are also exhausted. "You can't do what we've been asked to do with the number of people we have. The historical standard for successful occupation operations is 20 soldiers per 1.yahoo.000 civilians. "More Troops for Afghanistan?" The Independent Institute.

they contend. "I'm sorry to tell you. military to successfully wage another war at this time. other troop deployments. "Declining Morale of US Troops in Afghanistan.asiantribune.' which polled 3. General Gregory Newbold.S is ready to deal with new threats militarily if need be." said retired Lt.ANTI-WAR RESISTANCE. CONTINUED DEPLOYMENTS ARE BREAKING THE MILITARY -.000 veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan had been diagnosed with severe depression or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." ASIAN TRIBUNE. fire fighters).S. www. MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS PROVE Asif Haroon Raja. military is "severely strained" by two large-scale occupations in the Middle East. She says many from within ranks are openly declaring that they have had enough and have allied themselves with anti-war veterans and activists calling for an end to US led war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The veterans have signed up for anti-war Oath Keepers (an association of serving military officers. As per Sarah Lazare. They know. who retired from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in part over objections to the invasion of Iraq. MILITARY IS OVERSTRETCHED BY DEPLOYMENTS -. National Guard. accessed 4-19-10. veterans.com . according to a new survey of military officers published by Foreign Policy magazine and the centrist think-tank Center for a New American Security. Sixty percent of the officers surveyed said that the military is weaker now than it was five years ago. "We ought to pay more attention to quality. It said more soldiers were going AWOL to find treatment from PTSD." 6.S. Military Index. www. RAND further reveals that rates of PTSD and traumatic brain injury among troops taking part in war on terror have been excessively high. Bush. U. Some active duty soldiers are publicly refusing to deploy since they say they have no patience to keep getting redeployed. There are many such examples of multiple deployments which indicate acute paucity of troops. at a panel during a conference to release the data. politicians regularly speak on the military from a position of authority. "80 percent of the officers say that it is unreasonable. 'The U. the U. the US Army is overstretched and exhausted. Military. 101st Airborne Division which will be deployed in Afghanistan shortly faces its fifth combat tour since 2002. with a third of returning troops reporting psychic problems and 18." 2-19-08. there's going to be other wars. Over 150 GIs refused service while about 250 war resisters are taking refuge in Canada. often citing the number of troops deployed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. . From Republican presidential hopeful Sen. army suicides are at highest rate since records were kept in 1980."on the table. Hundreds of letters have been written to Obama by serving and retired servicemen. urging him to bring back US troops. The U. Longer war drags on more resistance from within ranks. accessed 4-19-10.alternet. "Senior Officers Worried About Dangerously Overstretched U." But the officers surveyed implied that military options against future threats may not be -.oneparadigm. Long absence from homes is escalating divorce rates.5% of all returning service personnel battling either PTSD or depression. reserves.43 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH INTERNAL LINKS cont'd 5." said the report.S.S.as politicians from across the spectrum have intimated -.com/news/2010/03/14/declining-morale-us-troops-afghanistan.400 current and former high-level military officers. and problems recruiting. that despite the two ongoing wars.THE OFFICER CORPS SAYS THAT WE ARE ALREADY OVERSTRETCHED IPS. "We will never surrender but there will be other wars." "Asked whether it was reasonable or unreasonable to expect the U." said McCain at a campaign stop last month." said the report. Think tank RAND report in 2008 had revealed 300. 3-14-10. 1700 strong GI resistance is gaining momentum. John McCain to President George W.org/world/77744/.S. Marine suicides doubled between 2006 and 2007. There has been 80% increase in desertions since 2003. "They see a force stretched dangerously thin and a country ill-prepared for the next fight.

www. Testimony before House Armed Services Committee. Although the United States can still deploy air. The first Bush administration contemplated a broader range of possible conflicts. carry out joint exercises with allies. deny them safe haven and fight insurgencies. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies.npg.as Hurricane Katrina reminded. and handle smaller problems.harvard. The two-war framework should be retained in some form. our forces out there are doing an incredible job and we need to help them.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/NSAG_US_Military_Under_Strain_January2006. and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression.when involved in a future war. I am very concerned that some of the points that have been raised about poor planning and lack of effectiveness in the past are failures that will be projected into the future. The U. the visible overextension of our ground forces could weaken our ability to deter aggression. Bush administration modified the two-war concept somewhat. . former Secretary of State.oneparadigm.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.pdf. CQ TRANSCRIPTIONS. I think that it's very important to understand all the things that we're asking our military to do in the post-9/11 era. we have to do everything we can to make sure that our military stays second to none and that we are able to deploy both force and diplomacy.S. also emphasizing the Iraq and North Korea scenarios. January 25. STRONG MILITARY VITAL TO HOMELAND DEFENSE. and perhaps occupied in one or more smaller ongoing operations around the world. the George W. But we are asking them to conduct. the United States would not want to invite attacks on its other allies or interests abroad. the military. WAR ON TERROR. a broad range of missions abroad -. destroy terrorist organizations.44 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (DETERRENCE) 1. And to build for these capacities. Brookings Institution. our military is second to none. 2006. and work with militaries of other countries and with multilateral international organizations. But it otherwise echoed much of the Bush logic. and we cannot afford to have that kind of incompetent way of approaching our greatest treasure. It pointed to the greater capabilities for modern weaponry and argued that increased use of prepositioned supplies as well as fast transport assets could compensate for smaller armed forces. October 26. in looking through the points of this report. therefore. in the way that it has been thus far. homeland. naval. because. January 2006. the United States also needs additional capability to deter other crises -.pdf. including war to protect the Baltic states from a resurgent Russia.com . Secretary Rumsfeld argued that the United States did not need to have the capacity to win both wars in decisive fashion (meaning unconditional surrender of the enemy and occupation of its territory) at the same time. help to establish and maintain stability in key regions. and we owe the American people better. this change in doctrine had only limited implications for force planning. In the end. 2. Specifically. 6-20-09. deter.S. WEAKENED GROUND FORCES UNDERMINES THE U. The two-war logic also had a basis in very specific examples. And our forces have to be able to defend the U. news conference. So it would need the ability to respond robustly to a second crisis or conflict while engaged in a major combat operation. The Clinton administration later reduced the size of the active-duty military by about 15 percent relative to what Bush had planned. ABILITY TO FIGHT TWO WARS SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDERPINS U. In the meantime. counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to both state and non-state actors. as it says in this report.S. accessed 6-20-09 There was a broad deterrence logic to the two-war framework -.edu/views/testimony/ohanlon/20051026_arms.S. The most plausible candidate conflicts were wars against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Kim family's North Korea. as has been stated.'s ABILITY TO DETER AGGRESSION National Security Advisory Group. DETERRENCE Michael O'Hanlon. which most thought quite likely at some point. even while keeping much of the basic logic. And as we've said. 3.brookings. DETERRENCE.ksg. and if necessary defeat aggression against U. In 2001. And. I do think that we owe the American military better.as well as maintain forward presence. Military: Under Strain and at Risk. In the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. STOPPING PROLIFERATION Madeleine Albright. The first Bush and Clinton administrations both argued that forces designed to handle two regional wars could also address other possible. allies and interests around the world. us here at home. http://bcsia. But it acknowledged that the two-regional-war scenario was the most demanding. The deterrent logic of being able to do more than one thing at a time is rock solid. even though Rumsfeld reportedly toyed with the idea of cutting two divisions from the active Army before abandoning the idea. further changes are now needed in America's armed forces and their undergirding defense strategy. 2005.S. If involved in one major conflict. lesser conflicts. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States.

naval. It has been ongoing for some time and will take years to overcome. August 13.a study entitled "Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium" published last year by Daniel Goure and Jeffrey Ranney: "A substantial defense strategy-resources mismatch . naval.S. National Security Advisory Group. It argued there was a danger that America's enemies could exploit its vulnerable state. It is not only capable of functioning in a very effective way. Congress and the general public. called for an increase in deployable army forces of at least 30. and action by the White House. LOW READINESS CREATES A POWER VACUUM. and other more specialised assets to deter or respond to aggression. will have "highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force". 2006. LIMITED GROUND FORCES SPUR ADVERSARIES TO CHALLENGE THE U. Today. ." THE GUARDIAN." At another point this report says the US has "only limited groundforce capability ready to respond to other contingencies. Although the United States can still deploy air. p. the visible overextension of our ground forces could weaken our ability to deter aggression. p. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. ENCOURAGING HOSTILE STATES TO CHALLENGE THE U. The magnitude of this double-whammy is staggering. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our groundforces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States. however." SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE. defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time." Mr Rumsfeld rejected that claim. "US Military Stretched to Breaking Point. a group of senior Democrats issued their own report yesterday accusing the Bush administration of putting "our ground troops under enormous strain that. Since the end of World War II. the former secretary of state. 6. The absence of a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge the United States.harvard. OVERSTRETCH UNDERMINES U. Frank J. foreign policy and national security interests -. William Perry. 6-20-09. It is of great national importance today because military spending levels now are too dangerously low in relation to current and future U. involvement. . January 26. History suggests that the consequence of such a practice is a vacuum of power that hostile nations often feel invited to fill. the Army "continues to accept risk" in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation. the United States must be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. As a global power with global interests.S. . if necessary. already exists. The report.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential to significantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies. a core element of U.ksg.'s ABILITY TO DETER AGGRESSION Julian Borger. In the meantime. It is profound. It is reaching crisis proportions and requires immediate attention.S. Gaffney. Defense Department. saying: "The force is not broken . journalist. The U.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/NSAG_US_Military_Under_Strain_January2006. "Although the United States can still deploy air. However. and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression. 2000.000 troops.oneparadigm.S. if not soon relieved. the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. It is not a peacetime force that has been in barracks or garrisons. http://bcsia.com . strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterring and.S. In addition it is battle hardened.S. its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require -. According to the most rigorous independent analysis to date concerning the deplorable condition of the American military -. . Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton's first defence secretary.which remain global and immense.pdf. Military: Under Strain and at Risk.G1.17. President of the Center for Security Policy." 5.increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harm's way and to the success of the mission. "The 'Four Percent Solution' for Military Readiness. presented by Senator Jack Reed. .45 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (DETERRENCE) cont'd 4. January 2006.

The bleed from the US military is heaviest among parttimers. the Army National Guard missed its recruitment target this year.000 part-timers are stretched to the point where President Bush may see other foreign policy goals blunted. These forces must be able not only to prevail in war. who have been dragged en masse out of civilian life to serve their country with unprecedented sacrifice. The United States cannot afford to let this to happen. this force structure must also be flexible enough to exploit new technologies. first reported by the Associated Press." THE TIMES. STABLE MILITARY TO ENSURE AMERICAN PRIMACY Mackubin Thomas Owens.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/NSAG_US_Military_Under_Strain_January2006.balancedforcestructure. including conventional. Instead of signing up 56. "In order to carry out effective diplomacy. We must keep faith with the men and women in our military and with the American people. and cyberspace * the ability to dominate adversaries across the entire spectrum of conflict * the ability to conduct information operations in all environments * the ability to execute compressed operational cycles * the ability to sustain forces but with a reduced logistics footprint * strategic and tactical mobility * the ability to penetrate enemy defenses with stealthy platforms * the ability to strike targets and carry out operations at increased ranges * an improved precision strike capability A military force capable of carrying out the extensive demands of the strategy of primacy would possess a number of characteristics.html." Albright said. decentralized. but allowing the force to break would also endanger U. We need to act now to protect and restore our armed forces. Their report said U. December 10. p.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. space. FURTHER WEAKENING OF THE MILITARY UNDERMINES U.harvard. expeditionary. As a global power with global interests.4 million active-duty troops and 865. 2004. For the first time in a decade. 3. LEADERSHIP. WEAK MILITARY UNDERMINES U. networked to ensure situational awareness in all environments. "Rumsfeld Denies Military is Stretched Too Thin. i. Many experts say that America's 1. doctrine. said commanders were weighing their battle plans against the potential strain on forces. Professor. Things are so stretched today that the United States was unable to contribute troops for Haiti's elections. irregular.S. space.S.capable of "plug and fight.fpri.55. . 6-20-09.owens. she said. January 2006. 2. you have to have an effective (military) force. 2006. air. "This is something that the President and the country should be worried about. said the military was on "a thin green line." especially in recruiting. but also reassure friends and allies and generally influence actors in those parts of the world of the greatest importance to the US. p. Conclusion The strains on the nation's ground forces are serious and growing. A strategy of primacy requires a balanced force that can be employed across the spectrum of conflict and prevail under diverse circumstances against adversaries employing a variety of strategies. DIPLOMACY Steven Komarow. January 26. and across the electromagnetic spectrum." said Lawrence Korb.8A.000. ground forces are under "enormous strain.S. A military force able to execute the necessary operational concepts and to overcome likely operational challenges must possess a number of capabilities including * the ability to operate from the global commons-international waters and airspace. Accordingly.ksg. The study. NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS National Security Advisory Group. that could snap because of the strain of extended deployments. http://bcsia. NEED A STRONG. National Security Affairs. catastrophic.S. and the viability of the All Volunteer Force is at risk. accessed 6-27-09. The U. and as a world leader.com . and operational concepts in order to maintain military preeminence in the future. The author.military." USA TODAY. Andrew Krepinevich. the United States cannot allow its military to be weakened any further. organization. These forces must be capable of operating jointly in all operational environments: land. journalist. difficult and time-consuming to rebuild a broken force. flexible and adaptable. "US Army Plagued by Desertion and Plunging Morale. both now and in the future. The Democratic report came a day after a Pentagon-sponsored review by a retired Army officer issued a similar warning.46 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (LEADERSHIP) 1." E-NOTES. "A Balanced Force Structure to Achieve a Liberal World Order. sea. an assistant secretary of defence under Ronald Reagan and now a military analyst who opposes the war. Foreign Policy Research Institute. 4.org/enotes/20060120. Those forces should be joint and highly integrated. Naval War College. Military: Under Strain and at Risk.pdf. able to achieve decision superiority and full-spectrum dominance with reduced support infrastructure.000 people.e. January 20.S. Not only would it be costly. especially Eurasia. 2006. national security. it found 51. while remaining of sufficient size and composition both to fight and win major theater wars and carry out constabulary operations in the present." lethal. OVERSTRETCHED MILITARY UNDERMINES OTHER FOREIGN POLICY GOALS Elaine Monaghan. modular -." It warned of "highly corrosive and potentially long-term effects on the force" if nothing is changed. as a nation locked in a long struggle with violent extremists.oneparadigm. and disruptive approaches. http://www.

Yet it takes little imagination to dream up other scenarios that might call for preemptive military action. the Musharraf government in Pakistan -would fears about Pakistan's nuclear weapons constitute an imminent danger? What about a massing of Chinese forces across the Taiwan Strait.org/Research/NationalSecurity/sr0054. "Protecting the Protectors by Investing in People and Next-Generation Equipment. the verdict is in: The U.and the challenge to autocratic forms of rule that come with it -. and adaptive fighting force the world has ever seen."Don't even think about it!" -. STRONG MILITARY IS KEY TO AMERICAN LEADERSHIP Mackenzie M. accessed 6-20-09. Consider the choices for an American president if a radical regime overthrew.org/publications/pubID. but a willingness to step in when the danger is imminent. www. senior policy analyst. the military has to provide a competitive array of pay and benefits. and.S. February 2003. The variety of victories scored by U. Although those who wear our country's uniform can never be fully compensated for their service.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. acts to deter threats. America's military has operated as an all-volunteer force. Heritage Foundation. and terrorists to accept the liberal democratic order -. or simply defeated at the ballot box." AIE OUTLOOK. June 8. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility of directly challenging the United States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a weakness in the American global order. forced military service through the draft was "intolerable" when compared with a volunteer system that aligned more distinctly with "our basic national values.com . .S.asp. Convincing would-be great powers. resident fellow.rests in part on a logic of preemption that underlies the logic of primacy. 54. But an all-volunteer system doesn't come cheap: You get what you pay for. The most important element to protecting vital national interests is the U.15845/pub_detail.heritage. perhaps preceded by an enlarged "missile embargo" of the sort attempted in 1996? These hypotheticals suggest that the heightened emphasis on preemption is not misplaced.cfm. fights and wins the nation's wars. Two components determine a strong military: the quality of its servicemembers and the equipment available to them.S. accessed 6-20-09. there are better ways to pay them. government's primary job is to provide for the common defense. The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of strength. military.47 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: MILITARY OVERSTRETCH IMPACTS (LEADERSHIP) cont'd 5. well-disciplined. 6. when necessary.requires not only an overwhelming response when the peace is broken. More Cash for Today's Forces For the past 36 years. Eaglen. "The Underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine.aei. military is the most highly trained.oneparadigm. which reinforces America's diplomatic initiatives." Almost four decades later. PERCEPTION OF MILITARY STRENGTH IS KEY TO LEADERSHIP Thomas Donnelly." SPECIAL REPORT n. rogue states. The U. http://www. American Enterprise Institute. as well as care for their families. As the commission responsible for recommending a volunteer force observed. 2009. To recruit and retain the best force possible.S. The message of the Bush Doctrine -.

We must ask ourselves: How many more U. but prolonging our occupation is likely to tarnish America's reputation.48 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: WITHDRAWAL SOLVES (ECONOMY) WITHDRAWAL AND CONTAINMENT IS A BETTER WAY TO PROTECT OUR BUDGET Malou Innocent. December 2.org/pub_display. "A Costly Mistake. undermine its security. http://www.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.com . accessed 3-5-10. Cato Institute.cato. and erode its economic well-being more than would a cost-effective policy limited to targeting al Qaeda.S. it really makes you wonder. foreign policy analyst.oneparadigm. 2009. . Not only is remaining in Afghanistan not a precondition for keeping America safe.php?pub_id=11027. and NATO soldiers will lose their lives for Afghanistan's unpopular and ineffectual central government? How many hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowed treasure will American taxpayers be asked to spend? What is the real strategic goal of remaining in Afghanistan? And are policymakers being honest when they say that this is for the people of Afghanistan or the need to defeat al Qaeda? Given the ever diminishing justifications for continuing the war." HUFFINGTON POST.

S. If anything. our means or our interests. "Winning in Afghanistan. though a long way off. and the Pentagon should crush any jihadist activities that local powers fail to stop themselves. OCCUPATION ONLY ENCOURAGES EUROPEAN FREE-RIDING AND ACCELERATES CHINA'S RISE Leon Hadar. desperately trying to stop the Iranian government from going nuclear. Rather than committing more troops. The bottom line is that Obama has embraced the conventional wisdom of the foreign policy elites in Washington that the United States needs to maintain its military presence in Afghanistan as part of an effort to protect the pro-American political and military elites that control Pakistan and its nuclear military installations.S.org/pub_display.S. the strategic goals for Afghanistan outlined by Obama "go beyond our responsibility.S.strategy for Afghanistan." NEWSWEEK. interests while failing to take in consideration the nationalist Pashtun component of the Taliban insurgency or the complex relationship between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda -.S. www. priorities lie elsewhere. military forces with also stay in Iraq for many years to come. LACKS TO POWER TO MAKE A SURGE WORK -.oneparadigm. which is greater than all the debt accumulated by the republic since its founding.it only provides more incentives for the Europeans and other allies to continue their free-riding on U.S. nothing is inevitable. the American deficit over the next decade is projected to explode by $9 trillion. WE NEED TO CONSERVE OUR LIMITED MILITARY RESOURCES AND NOT WASTE THEM ON AFGHANISTAN Andrew J. getting nowhere with the Israelis and the Palestinians. This doesn't mean Washington should blindly trust that warlords will become America's loyal partners. military power and it helps accelerate China's emergence as the preeminent global power.let's not forget Lebanon and Israel/Palestine -. Bacevich. dampen Washington's zeal for social engineering abroad. U. 2009. against the backdrop of growing tensions with Iran. "Sleepwalking into Disaster in Afghanistan. believing itself to remain in a position of pre-eminence that has passed it by. At the same time.newsweek. Professor. contrary to the pledge he made on Tuesday. mired in Afghanistan. the new president should withdraw them while devising a more realistic -. 2.com/id/177374. research fellow. There is one more reason the coming deployment in Afghanistan is doomed to fail. sooner or later." THE SPECTATOR. intelligence agencies should continue to watch Afghanistan closely. America today is economically imperilled. 12-31-08." HUFFINGTON POST. John C.PURSUING FOREIGN ADVENTURES IN AFGHANISTAN WILL MAKE IT WANE MUCH FASTER Dr. Likewise. . Cato Institute. paradoxically its power is likely to prove far more enduring and useful for global stability than if it fritters it away." These goals seem to disregard the fact that Al-Qaeda has ceased to be a viable force in Afghanistan and are also based on the dubious assumption that "Taliban's momentum" was a direct threat to U. But U.is quite limited these days. and U. upping the ante with additional combat forces might make sense. "Obama's New Afghanistan Strategy: The Same Old Pax Americana.especially military power -. and having to accommodate the rise of Beijing. the BRICs (Brazil. npg. which is where the real comparison with Britain applies. November 14. At the end of the day. http://www. therefore.in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. December 2.S. the most powerful nation on earth. troops in the region would probably start rising soon. as Washington continues maintaining its costly hegemonic project and to be drawn into the military quagmires in the Greater Middle East -. Russia.com . periodic airstrikes may well be required to pre-empt brewing plots before they mature. This is the uncomfortable elephant in the corner of the room that will. That is in the nature of America's changing place in the world itself. This is not to say that America will not remain. If America can finally realise that it cannot do everything in the world and all at once. Indeed. for a long time and by a long way. 3.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Were U. low-yield foreign adventures. For like the British in 1920. Hulsman. accessed 4-8-10.S.cato. So much for the peace prize.S. India and China) and the other rising powers are clearly gaining on an America winding down a disastrous war in Iraq. power -. Using the White House's own dubious numbers. resources unlimited and U. accessed 12-0-09. interests in Afghanistan more important. U. The United States simply lacks the wherewithal to continue to engage in high-risk.49 LEADERSHIP EXTENSIONS: WITHDRAWAL SOLVES (LEADERSHIP) 1.php?pub_id=11026.and more affordable -. one should expect that U. 2009. Boston University. the number of U. As with the Israelis in Gaza.S. History and International Relations. However.

"To gain accurate information and intelligence about the local environment.rense." Pakistani and Afghani reports uniformly detail killings of innocent bystanders as well as outright wipeouts of targeted families. it appears demonstrable that daily the cadres of Afghani people who roundly hate the United States expand and diversify. "Afghanistan Winning Will Not Matter. We have nothing left to win. but join ranks with the resistance where there is a paycheck and also an opportunity for revenge? This is no justification for our enemies over there. ESCALATION INCREASES VIOLENCE.php?view=270. The true needs of this conflict. Official reports are used in Washington to justify the $100 billion plus per year this war is costing. http://www.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. However. Imagine the resentment and anger survivors must feel when a family member is killed and nothing is done about it. MORE TROOPS WILL ONLY FUEL THE INSURGENCY -. When there are no other jobs available because all the businesses have fled. tribal communities and ethnic groups grow with each drone attack. U.com . there is another question that must be answered in regards to the troop increase: questions of second and third order effect problems aside. Army. "Saving Face in Afghanistan. Ironically. and in the end we will not even be able to do that. accessed 4-8-10. US official announcements report military successes. Colonel. One sensibly can ask where all of this is headed. www. But then inexplicably the report does not address how this danger will be mitigated once tens of thousands of additional troops are deployed. Reports on the ground serve to build America's burgeoning supply of enemies. but we have to accept that when we push people. This means that the United States is not merely losing this war. The introduction of upwards of 40. they will push back.50 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: AFGHAN PUBLIC RESENTMENT 1. Further." Many experts in and from Afghanistan warn that our presence over the past eight years has already hardened a meaningful percentage of the population into viewing the United States as an army of occupation which should be opposed and resisted. are that many troops even enough to accomplish the stated operational task? 2.INCREASED RESENTMENT Daniel L. U." retired Senior Foreign Service Officer. accessed 4-8-10. it is obvious that a military attack on militants in this region kills some alleged enemies while generating some more real ones.campaignforliberty. McChrystal's report expressly states that. The real question is why are we there at all? What do our efforts now have to do with the original authorization of the use of force? We are no longer dealing with anything or anyone involved in the attacks of 9/11. These are basically in the class of "We threw a bomb and it went off. what else is there to do. however. 3. 10-14-09. We are only there to save face. The hardest question to answer is: Why? .htm. Lt. Davis.S. 1-19-10.6.000 additional troops is almost certain to further exacerbate this problem. After eight years of little more than jungle warfare. The alleged American goal is the pacification of Afghanistan and the elimination of regional support for terrorism. there is much evidence to suggest that a portion of the opposition we face is based simply on our presence. These are in part truth and in part counter-propaganda. TURNING THE AFGHAN PEOPLE AGAINST US Ron Paul. Another thing that war does is create anger with its indiscriminate violence and injustice. 10-14-09. RENSE.com/general89/afgg. At this point we are only strengthening the resolve and the ranks of our enemies.oneparadigm. its actual service of US interests. How many innocent civilians have been harmed from clumsy bombings and mistakes that end up costing lives? People die from simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time in a war zone. GO BIG OR GO DEEP: AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY OPTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN. The gross effect is to turn a war for hearts and minds into a wholesale transfer of respect and sympathy to the other side. Arnold. but the killers never face consequences.S. U. Representative. ATTACKS ARE ONLY TURNING THE POPULATION AGAINST US Terrell E. and the real results of the attacks are all obscure subjects. it is planting the seeds for enduring hostility." Campaign for Liberty. ISAF must spend as much time as possible with the people and as little time as possible in armored vehicles. At the same time the pools of injured families.com/article. p.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES ARE INCREASING CIVILIAN SUPPORT FOR THE INSURGENCY Richard Tanter. "We Call for the United States to End Its Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan!" 2009. far from diminishing support for those using terrorist tactics against Afghan civilians.cpdweb. In both Afghanistan and Pakistan the actions of the United States and its allies serve to strengthen fundamentalist forces. September 14. Most important. http://www. In June. According to a Pakistani intelligence assessment provided to the New York Times last February.cato. That anger has helped the Taliban recruit and regain strategic ground despite their near total military and political defeat just a few years ago. western policy is increasing such support. Fearing unpopular NATO troop casualties. To avoid exposure American forces have relied heavily on pilotless "Predator" remote controlled aircraft that are notorious for misidentifying and murdering civilians.Fast. foreign policy analysts. Anger about these killings is so widespread that even the increasingly isolated U.php?pub_id=10533. In Pakistan. OUR DRONE ATTACKS ARE DRIVING THE CIVILIAN POPULATION INTO THE ARMS OF THE TALIBAN Tedford Lewis. accessed 3-5-10. the war is now being fought with the open and heavy involvement of U. Already fully a quarter of the Afghan population thinks that attacks on U. accessed 4-6-10. accessed 4-6-09. The first is that insurgency is being fed by Afghan and Pakistani anger at the civilian casualties resulting from coalition combat tactics. the U." JAPAN FOCUS. and a Taliban split between the south and east of the country and Pakistan. relies heavily on air power. In other words./NATO war effort.org/-Richard-Tanter/2948. especially the rising number of air strikes.000 civilians killed during the war. Campaign for Peace and Democracy. "The Coming Catastrophe: the American War in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Predator and other drones. http://www. The question we must ask is: at what cost and to what end? Since invading Afghanistan in 2001.com . Dutch army general Mart de Kruif estimated that there were between 10.oneparadigm. 3.000 wounded. The opposition to the Karzai administration and the western coalition is now a diverse set of groups ranging from warlords such as Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddun. "Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam War? Why the United States Must Disentangle -. accessed 4-6-10. troops have been killed and 4./NATO forces are justified.51 1. By historical standards these figures are low. Pakistan's long time enemy.globalexchange.-installed government of Hamid Karzai was compelled to condemn them." CATO WHITE PAPER.org/stmts/1014/stmt. www. RESULTING AIRSTRIKES ONLY INCREASE PUBLIC RESENTMENT AGAINST THE U. 4. 2009. it is likely that the U. which inevitably results in the death of innocent civilians. these air strikes only deepen popular hostility to the U. however the tactics we have used to keep casualties down are a major factor turning the Afghan population against us. BOLSTERING TERRORIST RECRUITING Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter.S. 11-13-08. United States military action is responsible for up to 90% of the more than 5.000 Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: CIVILIAN CASUALTIES www. Senior Research Associate. less than 700 U.ahead even of India. Pakistani public opinion now rates the U. could maintain its occupation of Afghanistan for many years. http://www.org/pub_display." GLOBAL EXCHANGE. they will draw more recruits to their cause and erode the legitimacy of the Afghan government. All of these groups have attacked civilians as well as government officials and the use of suicide attacks on both government representatives and civilians is increasing. Despite these daunting facts. .S. pushing growing numbers of Afghans and Pakistanis toward the Taliban. on top of the resentment caused by Washington's long support of the dictator Musharraf.shtml. INCREASING TROOPS ONLY INCREASE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES.html.S.org/update/publications/6157. As long as militants can exploit collateral damage (civilian casualties) for their propaganda and continue to promulgate the perception that they are fighting against the injustice of a foreign occupation.S. The number of al Qaeda operatives appears to be much smaller. al Qaeda has adapted to the deaths of its leaders by shifting "to conduct decentralized operations under small but well-organized regional groups.S.000 and 18. Far from eliminating terrorist networks." That dynamic underscores the importance that President Obama resist the urge to increase America's military presence in Afghanistan beyond what he has already unwisely committed. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. Because of the frequent killing of civilians by the drones.S. troop increases are likely to push disparate Islamist groups to unite.japanfocus.S. 2. It is important to distinguish between terrorist tactics in the sense of attacks on non-combatants for political ends and armed guerrilla resistance to specific government. Nautillus Institute for Security and Sustainability. as the number one threat -. two things are clear.S. 4-6-09.S. Al Qaeda. However.

with devastating consequences. The roots of this process can be traced back to the 1970s. International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI).S.200 tons last year. 9-20-08.shtml. the Taliban. While such predictions are dismissed as hysterical.52 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: ETHNIC CONFLICT/IMPERIALISM 1. Yet the very presence of American troops inflames ethnic differences. . 2001.com . Like every colonial occupation. www. PRESENCE ONLY FUELS ETHNIC TENSIONS G. which in turn fuels the very cycle that Levin insists he wants to avoid: a costly quagmire. "Get Out Now. http://www. and their very presence galvanizes opponents. After the struggle between the warlords had reduced the country to a heap of rubble. The aim of the US-led Operation Enduring Freedom and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force is to assert geostrategic control over access to oil and gas supplies in the region. they are simply the logical extension of Levin's insistence that the United States "increase and accelerate our efforts to support the Afghan security forces in their efforts to become self-sufficient in delivering security to their nation. who served in Afghanistan. and 700 children and 60 women die each day from hunger and lack of health care. Afghans view Americans as invaders and occupiers." SWSW. the imperialist seizure of Afghanistan provokes popular resistance. accessed 4-18-10. representing 93 percent of world yield. which the Western media indiscriminately ascribes to the "Taliban" or "terrorists. accessed 4-15-10." IN THESE TIMES. Pascal Zachary. The war in Afghanistan is an imperialist war. who had been trained by Pakistan's secret service. U. The plans for the conquest of Afghanistan had long been prepared when two airplanes struck the World Trade Center on September 11.oneparadigm." These efforts at self-reliance inevitably involve a significant American presence on the ground. killing innumerable civilians 2.com/article/5006/get_out_now/.wsws. "Where [American] forces are fighting. Opium production reached 8. David Richards. when the West began channelling funds to the local warlords and Islamic fundamentalists in an effort to bring down the Moscow-backed regime in Kabul. Average life expectancy is barely over 40 years. As Afghan army spokesman Zahir Azimi has said. Afghanistan sits fourth from last on the UN Human Poverty Index of 178 nations. finally took control. British Gen." NATO reacts by striking back brutally. 10-9-09. creating more resistance.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www." The self-perpetuating nature of the conflict explains the profound pessimism expressed by some with deep experience in the region. The illiteracy rate is running at 70 percent in the cities and up to 99 percent in the countryside.inthesetimes. "Withdraw All Troops From Afghanistan and Iraq! A Socialist Answer to War and Militarism.org/articles/2008/sep2008/anti-s20. OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN IS AN IMPERIALIST WAR DESIGNED TO SEIZE CONTROL OF RESOURCES Socialist Equality Party (Britain). said in August that stabilizing the country could take 40 years. Only a quarter of the population has access to clean water and just 10 percent have electricity. NATO has now bombed the warlords and drug barons back into power. people think it is incumbent on them to resist the occupiers and infidels.

author.000 in 2004. the likely futile attempt to stabilize Afghanistan to prevent another safe haven for al-Qaeda is actually fueling the fires of anti-U. But as NATO became increasingly obsessed with transforming the country and brought in more money and troops to deal with corruption and the judiciary. it failed. The Afghan government is in many respects a criminal racket. 2-27-07. things got worse. These new NATO troops encountered a fresh problem -. Afghans never liked being occupied. ONLY STRENGTHENS THE TALIBAN Ivan Eland. Withdrawing from Afghanistan and focusing on neutralizing the real threat from al-Qaeda in Pakistan -.com . 4.oneparadigm. When the decision was made to increase troops in 2005. Furthermore. December 7. http://counterpunch. police chiefs and local leaders.com/patrick12072009. We succeeded. Obama believes that sending even more troops and money will now bring "victory" in Afghanistan. a country with nuclear weapons. Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal. In fact. accessed 3-4-10. Foreign forces will either support this government.which has drawn them into a counterinsurgency campaign." NEW YORK TIMES. or try to operate through provincial governors. insecurity in rural areas and narcotics. "A Wider and Unnecessary War: The March of Folly. By 2004. But no inhabitant of Helmand would say things have improved in the last four years. The Taliban is growing and creating new alliances not because its sectarian religious practices have become popular. 11-23-08. 2009. troop numbers have increased to nearly 10.independent.000 today from just 2.org/newsroom/article.IT DID NOT EXIST UNTIL WE ESCALATED THE WAR IN 2005 Rory Stewart. must face two stark So the nation-building.53 1. 2. Center on Peace & Liberty. no Al Qaeda and almost no Taliban." The Independent Institute.S. but because it is the only available umbrella for national liberation.not the Taliban -. nation-building in Afghanistan has destabilized neighboring Pakistan. All this was achieved with only 20. better results.S. Other minefields face incoming American and British forces. Transparency International lists it as one of the most corrupt countries on earth. AIR STRIKES FUEL CIVILIAN RESENTMENT.org/the-case-for-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-by-tariq-ali. accessed 4-8-10. 2009. Afghanistan had a stable currency.harvard. millions more children in school.zcommunications. . What is now planned will amount to full military occupation and turn the country and the region into a battlefield. They have also had a negative political impact in the conservative and nationalistic communities of the Pashtun south and allowed Taliban propaganda to portray us as a foreign military occupation.hks. It is likely to radicalize the 12 million Pashtun in Afghanistan and the 20 million in Pakistan by conflating them with al-Qa'ida.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: INSURGENCY www. American and British aims in Afghanistan could be achieved by measured support for the Afghan government. NATO military strikes often targeted innocent civilians leading to violent anti-American protests in the Afghan capital last year. and because lives are involved." ZNET. author. www. In conclusion. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of the Taliban is correlated with increases in the foreign military presence in Afghanistan." COUNTERPUNCH. an elected Parliament. former British Foreign Service Officer. Some of this may be politically driven: a pretense of future benefits appears better than admitting a loss. there was no insurgency. INCREASE SUPPORT FOR THE TALIBAN Tariq Ali. As the British and Russians discovered to their cost in the preceding two centuries. More troops have brought military victories but they have not been able to eliminate the Taliban. Mr Obama's plan will deepen and spread the Afghan crisis. Islamist rage. Mr. and suffer the odium of backing gangsters. It is not going to end the 30-year-old Afghan civil war. OUR ESCALATION STRATEGY WILL ONLY RADICALIZE THE ENTIRE POPULATION -.S. 3. "The Good War Isn't Worth Fighting.pdf. www.asp?id=2633. What was initially viewed by some locals as a necessary police action against al-Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks is now perceived by a growing majority in the entire region as a fully-fledged imperial occupation.000 troops and a relatively small international aid budget.local Taliban resistance -. which will thereby confirm Taliban accusations that the Americans are seizing power in an occupied land. While economic conditions failed to improve. October 8. a better health system. "The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan. no one wants to write off sunk costs. drug-busting fiasco in Afghanistan is merely inflaming the Islamist urge to throw out the foreign occupiers. In Helmand Province. OUR PRESENCE IS SEEN AS A HOSTILE OCCUPATION.edu/cchrp/pdf/RoryStewart/TheGoodWarIsn%27tWorthFighting. accessed 3-10-10. We invaded intending to attack Al Qaeda and provide development assistance. www. accessed 3-4-10. warlords and criminals. senior fellow and Director.using the aforementioned techniques with a lighter footprint will give the U.html. "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan. the U.IS DOOMED TO FAILURE Patrick Cockburn. FOREIGN TROOPS DRIVE THE INSURGENCY -.

concentrated in the insurgent strongholds of course. Center on Peace & Liberty. Every U. mission in Afghanistan and Pakistan functions as a Taliban Recruitment Mission. MEDDLING IN AFGHANISTAN ONLY SPURS TALIBAN RECRUITMENT Dr. al-Qaeda already has a haven -." COUNTERPUNCH.html. 7. OUR OCCUPATION ONLY BOLSTERS SUPPORT FOR THE TALIBAN Ivan Eland. Zoltan Grossman. driving the (previously neutral) rivals into the hands of the insurgency. the U. The most salient aspect of the strategy. is the deployment of thirty thousand more American troops and a smaller number of NATO troops. The longer we mess around in a complex ethnic and tribal environment we do not understand.independent. which seeks to inflict casualties and wear down insurgent resolve. Counter-insurgency is mainly political and economic in nature.S. More Americans are opposing the occupation not because they sympathize with the Taliban.com . but precisely the opposite. especially in the Pashtun South and East where the insurgency is based. Western troops and aid workers are becoming seen as another occupying power.54 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: INSURGENCY cont'd 5. superpower as a foreign occupier. and have for eight years. Opponents of a U.com/grossman12022009. they had to be ambassadors of good will to the people. Evergreen State College. INCREASED U. only to have created a border safe haven for the insurgency. increases in Western forces have brought about the Taliban renaissance.S. They believed that driving insurgents into Pakistan counted as victory. They believe that aerial strikes by jets and drones (like the Soviets' HIND helicopters) would defeat the insurgents." The Independent Institute.and could have one in any country that has instability -.org/newsroom/article. "Retaliation was a Trap. This of course is being done to increase the resources available for counter-insurgency programs begun last spring in Helmand province. accessed 3-4-10 So far the Americans are following the same script as the Soviets in Afghanistan. They believe that control over Kabul is control over the country. Incredible news: they already do. As President Magsaysay told his soldiers amid the Hukbalahap insurgency in the Philippines. www. They were also manipulated by tribal leaders to attack their rivals. does need to focus more on the untamed areas of northwest Pakistan and encourage the Pakistani government to go after militants there. accessed 3-4-10. Yemen. "Five Facts About Afghanistan. If you follow the timelines. when it only legitimized Afghans' hatred of foreign rule.000 more American troops could make the Afghan people regard the U. The sudden deployment of more troops. a few simple facts on the ground in Afghanistan point to a third alternative. December 2. 2009. So additional forces will seek to wear down the Afghan insurgents.asp?id=2637. accessed 3-4-10.S. December 4-6.S. senior fellow and Director. surge believe that 40. http://counterpunch. First. geography instructor.-led nation-building occupation in Afghanistan is fueling the Taliban resurgence. historian. or Sudan. which local custom and national honor insist be ousted. will underscore local concerns and likely be a boon for insurgent propaganda and recruitment as well.S. whatever welcome foreigners had in 2001 has been fading.S. "A War of Attrition: Escalation and Exit in Afghanistan. but there is a military aspect as well. DEPLOYMENTS WILL ONLY SPUR INSURGENT RECRUITMENT Brian W.S. even though the insurgents run most of the countryside. They believed that torture would help to crack the insurgency.for example. 6. The U. http://counterpunch. Instead.com/downing12042009. Downing. Second.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. but they also had to kill or capture Huks. when the bombing only alienated more civilians.Pakistan -. U. AL QAEDA CAN BE BASED ELSEWHERE. the more likely it is that the Taliban will take full power -.oneparadigm. 2009.at least in the southern and eastern provinces. though not necessarily the most important one." COUNTERPUNCH. but they will present problems as well In many parts of the country. 2009. Somalia. .html. October 14.

INCREASING TERROR RISKS Ron Paul. no country poses a greater potential threat to U. All this means that the proper U. We are inciting the very terrorism and extremism we are trying to stop. But our policies are also pushing the region's powerful jihadist insurgency over the border into Pakistan. New American Foundation. History and International Relations.com/id/177374.com/article. 5-12-09. national security than does Pakistan. Also. in response to repeated Pakistani army incursions. Besides.html. Today and for the foreseeable future. MILITARY 'SUCCESSES' IN AFGHANISTAN ONLY PUSH THE TALIBAN OVER THE BORDER. POLICY ONLY PUSHES INSURGENTS INTO PAKISTAN. DESTABILIZING THE COUNTRY Malou Innocent. frees up resources to make war and potentially prop up unpopular leaders. 2. To risk the stability of that nuclear-armed state in the vain hope of salvaging Afghanistan would be a terrible mistake. without the fear that prevails currently in the U. accessed 4-9-10. . DRONE ATTACKS WILL ONLY DESTABILIZE PAKISTAN Steve Coll. that's what the Constitution permits and our founders strongly advised. It can be settled -." Campaign for Liberty. accessed 3-5-10. In fact. U. strengthening the very jihadist forces we seek to defeat. even if it is for humanitarian purposes. It. 10-15-09. then waging a prolonged war of assassination by flying robots within Pakistan's borders and without its government's participation. and maintain a neutral stance on the world stage. and it would gain us more friends and trading partners than our bombs ever could.campaignforliberty. September's bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad suggests that the extremists are growing emboldened. Cato Institute. priority for Afghanistan should be not to try harder but to change course. accessed 4-13-10.S.S. Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. We need to bring our troops home. www. with potentially devastating implications. The factions and politics of the Middle East are irrational and dangerous." NEWSWEEK.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. We play with fire when we meddle in their affairs. Drone operations have successfully killed a number of high-value targets and may have seriously degraded al Qaeda's global capabilities. does not seem a prescription for success. policy is pushing militants deeper into Pakistani cities. U.cato. Boston University. Third.gov/111/col101509. 4. 3. Meanwhile.S. an amalgamation of over two dozen tribal-based groups calling themselves "the Taliban" began to emerge in the Pakistani border region.S. The goal of American policy in Pakistan should be to create conditions in which this unattractive manifestation of unilateral American aerial and technological power is no longer unilateral -. end all foreign aid.and control of such operations can be shifted to a responsible Pakistani government.however imperfectly -.S. www. DESTABILIZING PAKISTAN Andrew J. in fact. accessed 4-10-10. the chief effect of allied military operations there so far has been not to defeat the radical Islamists but to push them across the Pakistani border. government that Pakistani security officers will misuse targeting intelligence to protect Islamist allies. along with a growing number of U. November/December 2009. Representative.S. and we isolate ourselves diplomatically by making more enemies than friends. Unfortunately. U.only through politics.newsweek. "Winning in Afghanistan. and pressing this weak but nuclear-armed country in the direction of civil war.S. as some "counterterrorism only" advocates would prefer. INVOLVEMENT IN PAKISTAN ONLY TURNS THE PEOPLE AGAINST US. missile strikes. As a result. "On Af-Pak: Stop Helping.oneparadigm. if a problem in assuring Pakistan's stability lies in the country's anti-American attitudes (which may not be as important as Americans believe).com . interests in Pakistan.house.S.55 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: PAKISTAN DESTABILIZATION 1. The war in Afghanistan (like the Iraq War) won't be won militarily. As early as 2007. The bottom line is our involvement in Pakistan's internal problems is not making us safer. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan are contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan. President. present U. Every dollar we send. 12-31-08.php?view=75. http://www.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. is the only foreign policy we can afford right now. our policy toward Afghanistan is undermining core U. Professor. Bacevich. we are adding to the numbers of our enemies and increasing the threats to our security here at home.pdf. foreign policy analyst.S. http://foreignaffairs.

Dozens of children were killed and the Islamists in Pakistan organised mass street protests. 2-27-07.php?pub_id=10533.org/-Richard-Tanter/2948. accessed 3-5-10. And full-scale battles will destabilise neighbouring Pakistan.a matter that India cannot ignore. That is one reason why militants find sanctuary in neighboring. 11-13-08. Insiders suggest that the 'pre-emptive' raid was. U.japanfocus." CATO WHITE PAPER. Given the war's incipient eruption into the core of the Indian sub-continent. http://www. September 14. "In late 2007. ." JAPAN FOCUS. three questions need urgent debate in all countries contributing forces to the ISAF in Afghanistan: * Are the stated goals of the US and UN intervention being achieved? * Are these the real drivers of coalition policy? * What should be done to move towards peace in Afghanistan and Pakistan? 7. no return of sanctuaries for international terrorism." ZNET. ESCALATING THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN WILL ONLY DESTABILIZE PAKISTAN Tariq Ali. Mehsud and Maulavi Nazeer of South Waziristan and Hafiz Gul Behadur of North Waziristan -. nuclear-armed Pakistan. presence in Afghanistan risks creating worse problems for Pakistan.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.formed an alliance in response to US airstrikes. Attired in Pashtun clothes I crossed it myself in 1973 without any restrictions. the Tehreek-e-Taliban. not military. accessed 4-6-09.S. in fact. the colonially-derived border has almost no meaning in social reality. all of this is happening in a country sharing a border with an already fragile state rendered vastly more so by pressure from the United States. "The Coming Catastrophe: the American War in Afghanistan and Pakistan. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN TO AVOID THE COLLAPSE OF PAKISTAN Richard Tanter. There is no way NATO can win this war now. 2009.56 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: PAKISTAN DESTABILIZATION cont'd 5. carried out by US war planes who were supposedly targeting a terrorist base. but the Pakistan government thought it better they took the responsibility to avoid an explosion of anti-American anger. And perhaps most important of all.Mr. But that argument cannot account for terrorists who thrive in centralized states that have the sovereignty to reject external interference.cato. author. and given the stated western goals of democracy and human rights." He continues. once-feuding commanders -.oneparadigm. foreign policy analysts. accessed 3-10-10. Unless western coalition policy changes rapidly. the war in Afghanistan has created a critical situation in two Pakistani provinces. http://www. "The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan. The border was an imposition by the British Empire and it has always been porous. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. Nautillus Institute for Security and Sustainability.com . and perhaps most important. The Afghanistan War is now the Afghanistan-Pakistan War. In this respect.S. as many as 27 groups merged to form an umbrella Taliban movement. It is virtually impossible to build a Texan fence or an Israeli wall across the mountainous and largely unmarked 2500 kilometre border that separates the two countries. The Pashtun majority in Afghanistan has always had close links to its fellow Pashtuns in Pakistan. Pakistan as a political entity will be threatened -." 6.zcommunications. spawning more terrorist recruits for Pakistani militias and thus placing undue stress on an already weakened nation. www. is the belief that our presence in the region helps Pakistan. "Three of the most powerful. Amassing troops in Afghanistan feeds the perception of a foreign occupation. and preventing the emergence of an Afghan narco-state. when in fact the seemingly open-ended U.org/pub_display. NATO's failure cannot be blamed on the Pakistani government. and between whom. If anything.IS RADICALIZING ITS TALIBAN Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. The survival of Pakistan now depends on a reversal of course in Afghanistan. The solution is political.org/the-case-for-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-by-tariq-ali. Christian Science Monitor correspondent Anand Gopal finds. Some policymakers claim the war is worth waging because terrorists flourish in failed states. Musharraf has already taken the rap for an air raid on a Muslim school in Pakistan. PRESENCE IS ONLY DESTABILIZING PAKISTAN -. Senior Research Associate. Sending more troops will lead to more deaths. under guerrilla leader Baitullah Mehsud.

ongoing political instability and popular unrest.20100402. improvements in international material protection control and accounting procedures. The fact remains that missing weapons-usable material turns up regularly on the nuclear black market. April 2010. especially in the cases of Russia and Pakistan. and scientific establishments continue to sympathize with and perhaps even support violent Islamist groups.com . PAKISTANI RESENTMENT OF THE U. July/August 2009. The challenges faced by Pakistani authorities must be seen in their broader context to be properly understood and effectively countered. July/August 2009. Rapid action is needed to keep the Taliban's advances in Pakistan from creating new opportunities for these deadly adversaries. and increased funding for nuclear security-related initiatives. For example. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. www. According to former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel. antipathy that contributes to the possibility that al Qaeda will be able to convince an insider to help its cause. there have been some notable lapses in warhead security.org/act/2009_07-08/Mowatt-Larssen. PAKISTAN INSTABILITY RISKS AL QAEDA ACQUISITION OF A NUCLEAR WEAPON Evan Braden Montgomery. the overall direction of pro-Taliban and anti-Taliban sentiment in the country should be closely watched. states must pay utmost attention to securing these means of mass destruction. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. INCREASES THE CHANCE THAT INSIDERS WILL GIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO AL QAEDA Rolf Mowatt-Larssen. In addition.S. "Pakistan is the most dangerous country in today's world.57 MILITARY SOLUTION BAD: PAKISTAN INSTABILITY IMPACTS 1. "Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Reducing the Risks of Nuclear Terrorism. Senior Fellow. Countering such insidious trends will require not only a strengthening of defenses. A third possibility is the theft of an intact nuclear weapon. "Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Reducing the Risks of Nuclear Terrorism.armscontrol. Most nuclear weapons are heavily guarded.Understanding_the_/B. PAKISTAN INSTABILITY RISKS NUCLEAR TERRORISM Rolf Mowatt-Larssen. This kind of externally directed hostility may not be readily recognized in its formative stages by those guarding the nuclear weapons arsenal. they would still have to overcome any security features that render a weapon inoperable without the proper arming codes.pdf. intelligence. In terms of assessing any spike in these risks. even in the United States. www. much work remains to be done in order to lock down all nuclear materials to a Fort Knox standard. for example by building two additional heavy water nuclear reactors for plutonium production and a second chemical reprocessing facility to extract the plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. All countries in possession of nuclear weapons are concerned about the possibility of losing control over a bomb or weapons-related material. Despite such troubling developments. accessed 4-10-10." BACKGROUNDER. www.Understanding_the_. accessed 4-10-10. there is growing rationale and shared motivation for insiders and outsiders to cooperate out of shared hatred toward the United States. Harvard University. The most worrisome aspect of these recurring incidents is that facilities from which the materials originated did not report them missing. Unfortunately." ARMS CONTROL TODAY. Harvard University. as well as suspicions that members of Pakistan's military. Despite increases in the scope and sophistication of security measures. assessing nuclear security in Pakistan should not be viewed in isolation. accessed 4-10-10.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/B.oneparadigm.20100402. 2. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Despite these factors. the sheer size of that arsenal. global security efforts until now have been good enough to avert a nuclear catastrophe. Yet. Recent years have seen increased international cooperation on nuclear security. and limited or problematic safety measures at its nuclear facilities have contributed to lingering questions over Moscow's ability to safeguard its weapons. Today's frightening instability in Pakistan comes in a world in which global terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and the materials and expertise needed to make them. and secure its nuclear arsenal have been underway for more than a decade. but also a weakening of the threats. fears of "loose" nuclear weapons persist and are warranted. and. while efforts to help the Russian government reduce. In Pakistan. the sources of anti-U." 3.armscontrol.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. even if terrorists did manage to acquire a weapon. because these threats are not being directed against the Pakistani government. the incomplete accounting of Russia's weapon stockpiles. These fears have also been compounded by reports that Pakistan has been expanding its nuclear infrastructure and increasing its nuclear arsenal.csbaonline.org/act/2009_07-08/Mowatt-Larssen. consolidate. although this would hardly be an easy task. . The bad news is that nuclear threats are growing. have exacerbated fears that Pakistan's nuclear weapons may be vulnerable. Senior Fellow. "Understanding the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism.S. a quest that has been underway for more than a decade. Consequently." ARMS CONTROL TODAY.

9-1-09. corrupt and predatory" that people sometimes yearn for restoration of the warlords. Creation of an effective central government? Afghanistan has never had one.S. three elections. but the Economist describes President Hamid Karzai's government -. however it is adjusted. Thus. www." BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS.oneparadigm. George Mason University.thebulletin. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.47-67. Diyala and Ninewah provinces and in Baghdad. they went.58 1. Rising perceptions of Hamid Karzai's government as ineffectual and corrupt. U. national security planners would have learned their lesson in Vietnam. And while the McChrystal strategy and the Biden-Levin option are presented in Washington as opposed choices. http://hir. and especially suspicions that it rigged the 20 August national election. This would make Afghanistan more susceptible to being used as a strategic pawn by a number of regional actors. While these actions are steps in the right direction. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan. cause was further dragged down by its alliance with the corrupt and unpopular South Vietnamese government under President Nguyen Van Thieu. to root out corruption in the Afghan political system. Why should the United States prop up Karzai by spending money and sending soldiers to the country to defeat the Taliban? The recent elections revealed corruption at the highest levels of the Afghan government. applying the surge formula to Afghanistan.php?page=article&id=1919. all of which militate against American "success. they altered no fundamentals. provisional and qualified counter-insurgency success in Iraq is not a persuasive precedent for a comparable result in Afghanistan.harvard.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: CORRUPTION www.S. 3. and partly because of. is likely to empower warlords. indicate that it does not have that kind of credibility among Afghans. accessed 4-8-10. 10-12-09.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/how-to-get-out-of-afghanistan. Even though violence exploded across Iraq after. there is no short-term guarantee that Karzai will be able. where the U. www. October 2009. McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy hinges on a legitimate government. Professor. including Iran as well as India and Pakistan. former Acting Executive Director. While Iraq's prime insurgency challenges were essentially compartmentalised in the confined space and among the relatively small populations of Anbar. One indirect indication is the difficulty the Obama administration is having in figuring out how to measure such success. Karzai's lot.edu/index.LACK OF GOVERNMENT LEGITIMACY Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. they share a common and overwhelming liability: They are designed to protect the corrupt Karzai government. increase factionalism and ultimately make Afghanistan harder to sustain as a functioning unitary state. accessed 4-8-10. DOOMING THE SURGE Tyler Moselle. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point. Again. Will.OUR STRATEGY WILL FAIL BECAUSE IT IS TIED TO A CORRUPT REGIME Hugh Gusterson. KARZAI IS THE PROBLEM -. to Get Out of Afghanistan. 2." WASHINGTON POST." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW.S. Obama's Administration has stated that Karzai must root out cronyism and corruption in order to continue to receive foreign aid." To what? They came." whatever that might mean.html. . Anthropology and Sociology.com . even if he sincerely tries.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912. Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan also would probably fail. pp. Counterinsurgency generally works only when the domestic government resisting the insurgents enjoys the respect and support of most of the domestic population. The paradox of the Obama Doctrine in Afghanistan is that it's designed to construct the sinews of democracy around a regime that stole an election and has come to personify warlordism and corruption. you would think U.his vice presidential running mate is a drug trafficker -. COUNTERINSURGENCY FAILS -. KARZAI'S GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT THAT OUR EFFORTS ARE DOOMED George F. yet Karzai is viewed as illegitimate and corrupt by many Afghans. 1-5-10. Afghanistan's recent elections were called "crucial. accessed 4-19-10. "who were less venal and less brutal than Mr.as so "inept.S.washingtonpost. On the operational level. "Time for the U. Secretary Clinton's recent visit underscored Obama's emphasis on not supporting a corrupt government." 4. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry hopes for a "renewal of trust" of the Afghan people in the government. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. KARZAI WILL NOT BE ABLE TO END GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" SURVIVAL. Afghanistan's hazards permeate its Texassized national territory.

OUR COUNTER-INSURGENCY STRATEGY IS DOOMED -. And calling it a counterinsurgency masks layers of complexity highly relevant to the outcome: tribal rivalry. accessed 4-13-10. Greek. I would submit to you that.24 -. Over the last few years the violence in Afghanistan has come to be dubbed an "insurgency" that requires the application of a counterinsurgency strategy. at heart. Even if the foreign troops are fairly benevolent -. By saying we're waging a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan we are committing ourselves to a massive project of nation building in a country that one commentator recently described as "like walking into the Old Testament.independent. seems to be unwisely sinking deeper into the Afghan quicksand. I would submit that counterinsurgency -. It is implicit in the logic of COIN. the underlying struggle between tradition and modernity. COIN has become the overriding theme in discussions about not just present. Indeed some notable COIN adherents have even emphasized its potential to "change entire societies. establishing governmental legitimacy.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. DOOMS US TO FAILURE Celeste Ward. there is. developing economies and so on. accessed 4-9-10. But because the discussion is often wrapped in the more abstruse language of defense wonkery and larded with historical analogies and assumptions. and doubtless several others. wars. This is one huge strike against them. RAND. defense and national security thinking that it borders on theology. and Iraqi success stories: the overwhelming factor of foreign occupation. www. The primary reason that counterinsurgency warfare has not been very successful over time is that although counterinsurgents are usually much stronger than insurgents." So for those of you who argue that there is no strategy in Afghanistan.building schools. isn't Karzai's effort to divide the opposition by bribing the Taliban with jobs and money a good idea? Given that the U. accessed 4-9-10. roads. it is really nation building. The conceit inherent in this notion goes mostly unremarked upon. The existence of a much ballyhooed manual -. FOREIGN OCCUPATIONS GENERATE SO MUCH RESENTMENT THAT THEY SIMPLY CANNOT WORK Ivan Eland. So from these two cases and the at least short-term success in Iraq.com . may again have at least short-term merits and is worth a try.the Army's Field Manual 3. and. the real strategic trade-offs -. and we should influence that decision so that they will choose us. instead of fighting them. senior defense analyst. Senior Fellow. A central problem with populationcentric COIN theory is that.meeting its needs. senior defense analyst.cato. The theory goes that most of the population is unsure whose side they should be on.has been in effect elevated to the status of a strategy. they are also often foreign occupiers. www. People naturally get really annoyed when foreigners invade their country. WILL NOT WORK Celeste Ward.they are still foreigners who are killing civilians by accident and arrogantly telling locals what to do at gunpoint.and perceived success in employing its precepts in Iraq are serving to obscure the real costs of the campaign in Afghanistan and provide a dangerous illusion concerning the limits of American power. a key precept is that we must win over the population. never mind penetrate and manipulate the opinions and loyalties of an ancient tribal people. "Learning from History: Can the U.as an operational concept and set of tactics -.59 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: COUNTER-INSURGENCY PROBLEMS 1.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. But this assumes that a foreign force such as ours could truly understand.S. I would argue that if General McChrystal had released not his counterinsurgency guidance but. 2-24-10.IS REALLY NATION-BUILDING IN DISGUISE.S. As Colonel Gian Gentile at West Point has written. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT.cato. RAND. Win the Afghan War?" Independent Institute. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. November/December 2009. a cultural movement in military defense circles. In addition to being the functional equivalent of nation building. The theory emphasizes the population -. November/December 2009. in effect. 3.the exorbitant costs of building a nation in a country with a history of no real central governance and that ranks 219th in per capita GDP -. instead. but future.oneparadigm. there are a number of problems with counterinsurgency theory and doctrine itself. thus creating a nationalist backlash. it has become the new American way of war.are glossed over.or COIN -which has now risen to such prominence in U. As just one example. But one other crucial issue has not been mentioned in the Malayan. ethnic conflict. his "nation-building guidance. The problem is that counterinsurgency doctrine and theory impede our ability to accurately apprehend the nature and extent of our predicament in Afghanistan and are serving as an awkward stand-in for a rational strategy.S. trying to bribe your enemies.asp?id=2737. www. This is in keeping with the general zeitgeist of "population-centric counterinsurgency" -. as our own experience with British forces in the American Revolution attests. COUNTER-INSURGENCY APPROACH MASKS UNDERLYING PROBLEMS. and health clinics and handing out candy to children -." we'd be having a very different discussion." It has become cliche to note the administration has yet to articulate a real strategy in Afghanistan. a worldview.html. . indeed.html. 2. and it is to transform Afghan society.org/newsroom/article.

more U.S.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/how-to-get-out-of-afghanistan. and it will provide reassurance to some fence-sitting peasants that the United States means business. soldiers in their villages. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan contains within itself the seeds of its own ineluctable failure. deployed on behalf of an American cause for which Americans weren't willing to give up their own sons. readers who paid attention in high school will recall it states that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. 2-24-10. 6. will intrude into Afghan daily life with their alien clothes.S.MEANS THAT A COUNTER-INSURGENCY STRATEGY IS DOOMED TO FAIL Ivan Eland.S. accidents and atrocities happen. escalation in Afghanistan is likely to face insurmountable long-term obstacles. the aerial attacks on suspected Al Qaeda fighters advocated by Biden will. Although the Taliban is often brutal (but may now be toning this down in its own realization that it must win greater public support) and unpopular. Unfortunately for the United States in Afghanistan. especially in a country such as Afghanistan. But Pashtuns don't like being policed by Tajiks and Uzbeks much more than they like U. George Mason University. Neither strategy will work. so is the U. This all may sound good in the airtight world of White House briefings but.oneparadigm. the Taliban is at least perceived by those people as being Afghans acting independently.S. Win the Afghan War?" Independent Institute.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/why-the-war-afghanistan-cannot-be-won. soldiers. in turn. "Learning from History: Can the U. the U. (2) the development dilemma.S. This is exactly the point made recently to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof by an anonymous group of former intelligence officials: "Our policy makers do not understand that the very presence of our forces in the Pashtun areas is the problem. the label of "foreign occupier" is an albatross the U.S. In the all-important quest for the hearts and minds of the Afghan public.independent.to Cyrus the Great of Persia -.is that to survive. dressed like armadillos in sunglasses. This will. COUNTER-INSURGENCY WILL FAIL -.S. This applies to counterinsurgency as well as physics. And when you have thousands of foreign troops being shot at. in the real world. troops into Afghanistan will make it possible to capture and kill more Taliban. Senior Fellow. soldiers. insurgency. stewed about putting distance between the United States and Karzai.(1) Newton's Third Law. effort fail. Did Washington learn nothing from the failure of the Vietnamization of the Vietnam War? Moreover.thebulletin.deliberately or inadvertently -. 9-21-09. COUNTER-INSURGENCY WILL FAIL -. troops.60 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: COUNTER-INSURGENCY PROBLEMS cont'd 4. inevitably miss many insurgents while killing many innocent civilians. The Pentagon will try to minimize the insult through cultural sensitivity training and new doctrines that emphasize befriending the locals. Thus. the greater the opposition. but more important -and something Americans don't want to face -. the Taliban guerrillas are fighting to get back their home turf. After the fraudulent election. Anthropology and Sociology. One must go back in history to centuries before Christ -. 5.S. Professor. troops in Afghanistan also means that more homes will be rudely searched in the middle of the night. counterinsurgency will be fuel for. and body language. So the U. This is so for three reasons -. speech.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.to find a conqueror of Afghanistan who actually was able to maintain control of it. To begin with Newton's Third Law. will likely never be able to shake or mitigate.more troops and more development -.WILL INCREASE DESTRUCTION AMONG THE CIVILIAN POPULATION. WE WILL ALWAYS BE SEEN AS OCCUPIERS -. and more U. TURNING THE POPULATION AGAINST US Hugh Gusterson. the very phenomena the counterinsurgency gurus see leading to success -. The counterinsurgency strategy will fail because foreign troops. However. not an antidote to. accessed 4-19-10. We do not mitigate the opposition by increasing troop levels. Karzai must stiff-arm the foreign occupier. provoke nationalist resistance. . as counterinsurgency specialist David Kilcullen has argued. accessed 4-19-10.will make the U. will likely have much more patience than the foreign occupier.thebulletin. www." BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS. and that means they.S.asp?id=2737. The more troops we put in. and (3) the prohibitionist paradox. however.org/newsroom/article.in contacts with U. Sociology and Anthropology. produce further hatred of the United States among the Afghan population. but rather we increase the opposition and prove to the Pashtuns that the Taliban are correct. accessed 4-13-10. but they will fail because it's in the very nature of counterinsurgency that occupying forces must be intrusive to be effective. Putting more U.CAN ONLY GENERATE ADDITIONAL RESISTANCE Hugh Gusterson. occupation and the corrupt client government of Hamid Karzai. The more such troops you have. George Mason University. the more accidents and atrocities you get. 10-12-09." Some are now suggesting this problem can be solved by building up Afghanistan's own military and police forces and relying less on U. www. "Why the War in Afghanistan Cannot Be Won.S. The Biden-Levin strategy also will fail because Pashtuns don't want to be policed by Uzbeks and Tajiks and because newly trained Afghan troops won't fight hard in a war in which they see themselves as surrogates for Americans.S. more Afghan women will be dishonored -." BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS. Professor. In addition. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan.com . www. like the North Vietnamese.

) Just this morning. to soothe our consciences. elite and ordinary Afghans have such different worldviews that they might as well live on different planets. Rather than majority rule governing. That is because in Afghan culture.asp?id=2677." are unlikely to make much difference on the ground.but because the U.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: GENERAL www. A TROOP SURGE WILL MAKE ONLY A MARGINAL DIFFERENCE ON THE GROUND Bruce Falconer.org/newsroom/article. war effort in Afghanistan. "More 'Corruption' Is Needed in Afghanistan. One of the reasons why most counterinsurgency campaigns fail is that they're run by foreign occupiers who don't know the culture of the invaded country. latent for eight years of the U. the implication was that it couldn't and that the U. . a consensus is hammered out. "New Troop Deployments to Afghanistan Will Only Feed Insurgency. and as Dorronsoro points out. back towards the chaos that gave birth to the Taliban and played host to Al Qaeda.oneparadigm. building such institutions is our only real exit strategy. 12-9-09. The Afghans will somehow have to do that themselves.S. would ultimately fail." Independent Institute. Applying foreign policy realism to the problem of Afghanistan. People in Afghanistan usually solve their political issues by inviting tribal leaders and warlords to a grand assembly called a loya jirga. the Obama administration needs to realize that it probably can never bring about long-term stability in Afghanistan -. and British all failed to do so. accessed 4-13-10. nation-building. probably has not disillusioned Afghans as much as it has Westerners. spreading democracy. or national interest in terms of high national principle (peacekeeping. most say. This is precisely the wrong way to go. our leaders disguise fighting for loot. A report (. he writes that "the international coalition now has limited resources and a narrow political time frame to create lasting Afghan institutions. Senior Fellow. Because of this vast cultural divide. Politico reports that Obama will soon request that at least another 10.S. 2-3-09. etc. Odds are that the U.S. The election fraud then led to a thorough examination by the American media of Afghanistan's corrupt government and questions about whether such a venal government could ever win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. Two things that Afghans have gotten used to in the last 200 years are wars caused by foreign occupiers and corruption from their own rulers. war effort will ultimately fail. Afghan factions loyal to the U. Thus. attached to this sinking anchor.pdf) released today by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace argues that following the conventional (and prevailing) wisdom on how to prosecute the Afghan War will only make things worse. Yet. This usual cultural ignorance. even after an Iraqi-type "surge. The solution. is to withdraw US troops from Iraq and redeploy combat units to Afghanistan. In Afghanistan. and then people actually start believing the malarkey.S.61 1. http://motherjones." The troops we have at our disposal. (It must be said that European governments are loathe to shoulder much of the burden. not primarily because of a tainted election or a corrupt government -. the first of several new deployments that are in the planning stages. fighters who switch sides for money may seem corrupt to the Western eye. author of the Carnegie report. influence. Says Report. the United States should realize that a foreign occupier can never really win hearts and minds in Afghanistan.independent. In the West.REACTION TO RECENT ELECTION PROVES Ivan Eland. Furthermore. what is considered corrupt in Western countries is just good clean fun in Afghanistan.com/mojo/2009/02/new-troop-deployments-afghanistan-will-only-feed-insurgency-says-report. territory." MOTHER JONES. will only be so until the cash or in-kind payments run out.000 troops deploy to Afghanistan. came into sharp focus during the recent election campaign. Of course. as an example of the latter. says Gilles Dorronsoro. accessed 4-6-10. elections and majority rule don't have that much legitimacy anyway.com . Washington and its NATO partners recognize that Afghanistan is slowly slipping away. 2. where they will establish the level of security required for political and social development to occur. Soviets.which should have been obvious since the Russians.S.). The American foreign policy elite blanched at the massive fraud allowing President Hamid Karzai to win a second term handily. DIFFERING WORLDVIEWS MEANS THAT OUR EFFORTS WILL FAIL -. war effort. www. small-scale surges in the past have only led to increased violence and an emboldened insurgency. The impact of the fraudulent election. but may be more honest with themselves than are Westerners.

Thus. In Iraq you have the three groups. the Tajiks at 25 percent. You have an election for president." King's College London professor Christian Tripodi. But instability. In reality. That's true of the Hazara regions. the independent election commission and the other structures of government. INSTABILITY. the Hazaras.independent. highly centralized in the sense that the central government appoints the governors. which has obviously been at the center of my thinking for the last year. accessed 3-5-10. accessed 4-18-10. what this really means is that the president doesn't control large parts of the country. The president controls the Supreme Court. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. but in spite of that he was actually thought of by everybody as a Tajik.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.oneparadigm. in the sense of a perpetually anarchic state of nature dominated by tribal warlords and pervasive bloodshed. now erroneously branded as "Talibanism. and thus the central highlands and to a lesser extent the north are relatively stable. "Can the U. The president controls. an expert on British colonial-era tribal policy. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. In truth.even centuries. Most Americans are simply oblivious to the region's history.org/pub_display. It is almost exclusively a Pashtun movement. the Pashtuns at 45 percent. at 10 percent. There is quite a weak parliament. rooted in their culture and one of those things that defined a man in a society that placed a premium upon independence and aggression. is controlled from Kabul. You have the more violent south and the relatively more stable north. September 14. foreign policy analysts.cato. There was no shared identification among the Pasthuns with him. who are Shiite. All the ministers. since Afghanistan will be chronically unstable regardless. Numerous tribes along the border of northwest Pakistan and southern and eastern Afghanistan have a long history of war-making and rebellion. In Afghanistan there are four. including Carnegie Endowment senior associate Robert Kagan." CATO WHITE PAPER. One of the problems of Afghanistan is that it has a government structure that is completely unsuited to the country. The provincial councils are effectively just advisory bodies. Let me turn to Afghanistan. but what he proposed and what I think makes sense is that there be entrenched power sharing by taking significant powers away from the president. http://www. and there is also a winner-take-all system at the center. and this turned out to be critically important. Some analysts. the claim that Afghanistan would be destabilized if the United States were to decrease its presence is misleading. There are a lot of similarities between Iraq and Afghanistan. since it's a very diverse country both ethnically and geographically. of course. an activity that was centuries old. There's not a local authority. 2009. and when you get to the Pashtun regions. Abdul Abdullah who was Karzai's principal challenger.62 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: GOVERNANCE PROBLEMS 1. One of the things. TOO MANY GOVERNANCE PROBLEMS -. and one of the points to make here is that we talk about the Taliban. and that person then exercises basically all power. the Uzbeks at 5 percent. at least that's how it works in theory. It operates only among the 45 percent of the country that are Pashtuns. the education department at the local level. and this was proposed by Dr.THE AFGHAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS SET UP TO TAIL Peter Galbraith. AS HISTORY PROVES. The tribes viewed raiding as honourable and possibly quite fun. has characterized the region for decades -.OUR PRESENCE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ONGOING CONFLICTS Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. the political and military vacuum left by our departure would lead to serious instability throughout the region. and both countries have some Turkmans. insist that were the United States to evacuate Afghanistan. www. Now.S. having a prime minister and cabinet chosen by the Parliament with the same kind of bargaining that takes place in Iraq. explains what British administrators confronted when dealing with Pashtun tribes along what is today the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan: What the British refused to grasp was that tribal raiding and violence was not necessarily a product of poverty or lack of opportunity. But whereas in Iraq you have a high degree of local self-government and a system that entrenches power sharing at the center. 12-9-09. what Afghanistan needs is an Iraqi-style constitution also with elected local government.asp?eventID=145. . The Tajik areas are on the ground significantly self-governing. Somebody wins. former Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to Afghanistan. 2. interestingly a man who was one of the few true Afghans in the sense that his father was a Pashtun and his mother was a Tajik.php?pub_id=10533. IS INEVITABLE IN AFGHANISTAN -. in Afghanistan you have a Napoleonic constitutional structure.org/events/transcript.com .

" COUNTERPUNCH.000-troop level the U. WE SIMPLY CANNOT WIN MILITARILY IN AFGHANISTAN -. 3. Afghanistan has rejected invaders with great consistency. in this case. accessed 4-6-10. Meanwhile. which some people call opportunities. AFGHANISTAN CAN BE NOTHING BETTER THAN A QUAGMIRE. on both ends. Alexander the Great.html. December 2. Afghanistan is the "roach motel"of empires. accessed 4-8-10. Nor. and is bounded by more artificially colonial borders than either Vietnam or Iraq.Fast." retired Senior Foreign Service Officer. committed before losing the war in Vietnam. and there are challenges.000-troop level Obama proposes is a fraction of the 500. 2. "Afghanistan Winning Will Not Matter. but the basic character of the region has not changed. Afghanistan's greatest value has been its place in the road between east and west. http://www.HISTORY. The mujahedin (aided at the same time by Osama Bin Laden) defeated the Soviet superpower after only ten years. TERRAIN PROVE Tedford Lewis. http://www. 4-6-09. but our observers do not heed it.63 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: HISTORY PROVES (GENERAL) 1. and airway may now be evolving toward oil and gas pipelines. Afghanistan and the bordering areas of Pakistan (where U. The decade-long occupation by the Soviet forces in the 1980s failed so catastrophically that it is considered among the top factors leading to the collapse of that super power. but they don't check out.rense. RENSE. The Russians were not beaten. http://counterpunch. But what Afghanistan has in common with both Vietnam and Iraq is its long history of resistance to foreign occupation -. they were finally exhausted by lack of success.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. The British made multiple attempts to conquer Afghanistan in the 1800's. It is a tragedy of Obama's presidency that he and his policy team have been blinded by the same strategic chimera that deluded the Bush administration. Afghanistan will surpass Vietnam as the longest single war fought by the United States in its history. Consider the facts: The topography of Afghanistan is so rugged and isolating that no central government has ever been able to exert genuine control over the territory or its diverse peoples. They check in. President Obama denied that "Afghanistan is another Vietnam" -.HISTORY PROVES Terrell E. Afghanistan is far more mountainous and difficult to occupy.S. it would be more than 100 years before another empire would attempt control. Zoltan Grossman.htm.com . 1-19-10. In 1979. Arnold.whether by Chinese. They get lured into battle. the 60.globalexchange. THE WAR IS UNWINNABLE -. Like Vietnam.com/general89/afgg. "Retaliation was a Trap. A 'ROACH MOTEL' FOR EMPIRES -. geography instructor. That has been the simple truth for more than three millennia since Kabul reportedly was founded. British soldiers barely escaped with their lives from three colonial wars in Afghanistan. Evergreen State College.oneparadigm. the Afghan war is unwinnable and will sap resources desperately needed at home. the Great Khans. In his West Point speech on December 1. and even older seekers after greatness. That same handwriting has been on the wall for the US for several years. The long progression from foot path to camel track. is warfare the way to rid this ancient Islamic region of its extremes of faith and religious practice.org/update/publications/6157." GLOBAL EXCHANGE. Throughout its history. The US used people who are now the hated Taliban and al Qaida.HISTORY PROVES Dr. including Osama bin Laden. The most telling success of the US campaign in Afghanistan and Pakistan is the demonstration that warfare is not the answer to regional political discontent. "Is Afghanistan Obama's Vietnam War? Why the United States Must Disentangle -.and in some senses he is correct. The Russians withdrew in defeat only a few years before the Soviet Union and its Afghan allies collapsed. Vietnam in 1975 was a far more unified state -. roadway. as frontline fighters in the battle to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. and then get bogged down in a quagmire they cannot win.html.com/grossman12022009. Japanese and French in Vietnam.ethnically and politically -.than Afghanistan ever has been. President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had consciously lured the Soviets into invading Afghanistan by arming Islamist mujahedin fighting a pro-Soviet revolutionary government. Sooner or later it must register that there is no military victory in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is still in the middle of the east-west road. special forces are already active) comprise a land area nearly four times the size of South Vietnam with a population 50% larger than South Vietnam had during the war. . before their global empire finally collapsed.before the Americans ever arrived. 2009. This proud history is the main factor that has united Afghanistan's diverse ethnic and sectarian groups in the past two centuries. Failing utterly. or the British and Russians in Afghanistan -.S. the Turks and British in Iraq. While a tempting prize to Great Britain. accessed 3-4-10 In just a few months.

Adding more US troops will only assist those who recruit fighters to attack our soldiers and who use the US occupation to convince villages to side with the Taliban. The situation has only gotten worse with recent escalations.S. www. It is our presence as occupiers that feeds the insurgency. why are we determined to follow their example? Most importantly.php?view=435.com .000? Why not 500.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.000 American troops. U." Soon Gorbachev began the Soviet withdrawal from its Afghan misadventure.com/article. 2. what is there to be gained from all this? We've invested billions of dollars and thousands of precious lives -.com/article. told then-Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev. Will another 40.S. Representative. Part of the problem stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. I have serious concerns. This "surge" will bring US troop levels to approximately those of the Soviets when they occupied Afghanistan with disastrous result back in the 1980s. We overthrew the Taliban government in 2001 with less than 10. Thousands were dead on both sides. AND SOVIET ACTIONS PROVE THAT ESCALATING THE WAR AND SENDING MORE TROOPS ONLY MAKES THINGS WORSE Ron Paul. This past week there has been a lot of discussion and debate on the continuing war in Afghanistan. Marshal Sergei Akhromeev. Eight years into our own war in Afghanistan the Soviet commander's words ring eerily familiar.000 and were eventually forced to leave in humiliating defeat. How many more troops should be sent over in order to pursue the war? The administration has already approved an additional 21.000 do the job? Or should we eventually build up the levels to 100. SOVIET EXPERIENCE PROVES THAT OCCUPATION WILL NOT WORK Ron Paul. www. Why does it now seem that the more troops we send. Lasting twice as long as World War II and with no end in sight.000 American service men and women to be deployed by November. accessed 4-8-10. the majority of the territory remains in the hands of rebels.64 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: HISTORY PROVES (SOVIET OCCUPATION) 1. Statement before the House Foreign Relations Committee. Representative. which will increase our troop levels to 68. accessed 4-8-10." Campaign for Liberty. about the president's decision to add some 30. The current debate is focused entirely on the question of troop levels. the war in Afghanistan has been one of the longest conflicts in which our country has ever been involved. yet the occupation failed to produce a stable national Afghan government. PAST U.000 -.S. In late 1986 Soviet armed forces commander. diverse groups have put aside their disagreements to unify against foreign occupation.oneparadigm. however.just to be "safe"? And how will public support be brought back around to supporting this war again when 58% are now against it? I get quite annoyed at this very narrow line of questioning.for what? . the worse things get? If the Soviets bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan with troop levels of 100. 10-14-09. 12-10-09. Nonetheless.000 troops and an as yet undisclosed number of civilian personnel to escalate our Afghan operation. I fear the US military occupation of Afghanistan may end up similarly unsuccessful. As would be the case if we were invaded and occupied. "Military actions in Afghanistan will soon be seven years old.php?view=270.000.campaignforliberty. U. "Saving Face in Afghanistan. There is no single piece of land in this country which has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier.campaignforliberty. I have other questions.

The places and faces may have changed but the enemy is old and familiar. MANY PARALLELS Thomas H. this amounts to only a paltry 140.000 mostly ineffectual forces. the British lost the American Revolution by having insufficient forces in a rather large territory. During roughly the same period. the Ottoman Empire and their surrogate. The power needs to bring sufficient strength early on to dominate the war or give up and get out. Other key contributing factors bear a striking resemblance: Almost exactly 80 percent of the population of both countries was rural. Napoleon lost against the British and Spanish guerrillas because he failed to commit the effort needed to win. withdraw from Afghanistan.oneparadigm.com . Even the Army's new field manual on guerrilla warfare says that 20 to 25 occupation forces are needed per one thousand inhabitants. lost to a lesser foe or won only with great difficulty. The motto for counterinsurgency war should be either commit enough forces to win early or get out. historical cases abound where a great power. the United States gradually escalated to more than a half million troops. and concentrate on pressuring al-Qaeda in Pakistan with a smaller military footprint -. senior fellow and Director." In Vietnam. The British -. advantages in ground mobility and artillery.000 to have a good chance of winning. Johnson and M.com/articles/2009/08/20/saigon_2009. accessed 3-4-10. "Five Facts About Afghanistan. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan (prior to the U. should cut its losses. and the Europeans provide just over 30. After eight long years of a lackadaisical effort.IS WORSE THAN VIETNAM Ivan Eland. engagement there) had surprisingly defeated a European power in a guerrilla war that lasted a decade. 2. The bad news is that Vietnam was a much smaller country in population and area than is Afghanistan. This would necessitate an occupation force of 640. Frank Rich of the New York Times puts the Afghan population at 32 million.S. another 40. with an added 40.000 to 800. Both were land wars in Asia with logistics lines more than 9.didn't initially send enough forces to win but then later sent more and won "ugly. trackless. accessed 4-18-10.foreignpolicy.S. AFGHANISTAN IS THE NEW VIETNAM -. The U.000 miles long and extremely harsh terrain with few roads.S. and literacy hovered around 10 percent." FOREIGN POLICY.independent. Egyptian Muhammad Ali. followed by a largely north-south civil war which lasted another decade. Chris Mason. HISTORY OF COUNTER-INSURGENCIES PROVE THAT AFGHANISTAN IS UNWINNABLE -. where they maintained absolute political control. 2009. will have 68. 8-20-09.000 committed this late won't even lift the Obama administration out of the halfhearted category.org/newsroom/article. finally marshaled enough troops to defeat the fierce Wahhabi guerrillas in Arabia. "Saigon 2009. here's a reality check: It's not taking things far enough. in the late 1700s.MANY. Center on Peace & Liberty.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. but this was not enough to beat a North Vietnamese/Viet Cong force of only 100. For example. In the early 1800s. October 14. www. by not committing enough forces early.so as not to stir up more anti-U. The sooner the United States recognizes this.in the Anglo-Sudan War in the late 1800s and the Boer War around the turn of the 20th century -. For those who say that comparing the current war in Afghanistan to the Vietnam War is taking things too far. .65 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: HISTORY PROVES (VIETNAM) 1.asp?id=2637.S. the sooner it can stop making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. which nullified U. The U.000. it's impossible to ignore the similarities between these wars. Even at first glance the structural parallels alone are sobering. Insurgents in both countries enjoyed the advantage of a long. Fifth. www. From the origins of these North-South conflicts to the role of insurgents and the pointlessness of this week's Afghan presidential elections." The Independent Institute.000.S.000.000 troops there. and uncloseable border and sanctuary beyond it. Islamists than we are neutralizing.

dooming the efforts of the Western powers that have hitched their wagons to his dubious star. 2009. Afghanistan has yet to demonstrate the capability to function as a cohesive. stable electoral democracy would require a multi-decade commitment -. with as much power as possible being devolved to the local level. nation state.S.while our own country faces economic peril -. As such.oneparadigm. NATION-BUILDING IS DOOMED -. "Soldiers and Marines are expected to be nation builders as well as warriors rebuilding infrastructure and basic services. would suit the country's realities.cato.and tribal-based society. poverty stricken. npg." a relative term considering the limited contact many have with their country's own central government.com . non-corrupt. November 14. John C. modern.and perhaps never will. Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. America's top commander in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy analyst. Throughout it all President Karzai and his supporters did a credible impression of the former President Diem of South Vietnam. . clan. A series of tribes form the local unit of politics. For example. accessed 4-9-10. Cato Institute. Cato Institute. This lack of local legitimacy. tribal-based society -. There are numerous missions that have been suggested." That sentiment is shared by many of the people informing administration policy. "Sleepwalking into Disaster in Afghanistan.cato. EFFORTS AT NATION-BUILDING ARE DOOMED -. and incompetent all at the same time. This truly matters because the basic problem with Afghan politics is that its constitutional system does not match the indigenous political facts on the ground. accessed 4-9-10. arguments supporting a multi-decade commitment of "armed nation building" -. I would argue that can't be done in any case. 9-4-09. It is almost a misnomer to refer to it as a nation-state in the Western sense of the term. even in arenas that are far more promising than Afghanistan. Biddle's advice is more goal than strategy. a confederation.php?pub_id=10509. Afghanistan is largely a pre-industrial. and not by the Afghan people themselves.the words of another civilian advisor to the mission. that we don't need to pursue to achieve that narrow objective. Army and Marine Corps' Counterinsurgency Field Manual states. we don't need to try to transform Afghanistan into a stable. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT. an added problem in Afghanistan is the lack of any sort of credible local partner to manage nation-building on the ground. 2.NOT SUITED TO AFGHANISTAN Ted Galen Carpenter. In addition. where the political rubber hits the road. For Obama.html.and even then there'd be no assurance of success." But like many within the Obama administration.KARZAI GOVERNMENT IS SIMPLY NOT CREDIBLE Dr. and this country seems to be pursuing. Sadly.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. the Afghan constitution vests far too much control at the national rather than the regional level. Anthony Cordesman -.org/pub_display.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: NATION-BUILDING www. http://www. Vice President.overlook whether such an ambitious project can be done within costs acceptable to the American public. the one thing the Taliban and Western observers agree on was that the avoidance of a second round was generally engineered by the W est. nation building has a lousy track record. isolated. ANY EFFORTS AT NATION-BUILDING WILL FAIL -.MULTIPLE REASONS Malou Innocent. perhaps the single key ingredient any successful effort in nation-building must possess." THE SPECTATOR.66 1. and sparsely populated provinces have little interest cooperating with "foreigners. This is a recipe for endemic conflict. modern. First." HUFFINGTON POST. Everyone admits the recent presidential election in Afghanistan was a farce. rather than some Jeffersonian ideal. It is common knowledge that Afghanistan is one of the most disparate polities in the world (read Kipling). with or without us -. Hulsman.is nothing short of ludicrous. Our attempt to transform what is a deeply divided. Fact: Afghanistan. November/December 2009. proving themselves corrupt. especially since even the limited goal of creating a self-sufficient. 3. is now beyond the reach of Karzai. democratic society with a strong central government in Kabul. Constant but ineffectual Western meddling in the process did no one any favours either. Second. said a critical requirement for the success in Afghanistan "is providing enough of an improvement in Afghan governance to enable the country to function without us. At least. civilian advisor to General Stanley McChrystal. Stephen Biddle. Many tribes living in rural. it can't be done at a reasonable cost in blood and treasure and in a reasonable amount of time. "Myth v. www. otherworldly. Myth # 4: We Can Have a Successful Nation-Building Mission in Afghanistan The U.

Thus.com .47-67. "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" SURVIVAL. a catalyzing movement that fuels Islamic radicalisation in Pakistan and imperils the secular regime. which with the support of a resurgent Taliban on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border has reconstituted its operational base and safe havens in the tribal areas of Pakistan. appears to be the case. Unlike the Taliban. Indeed. "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" SURVIVAL. The United States has two strategic imperatives in the region. the core al-Qaeda infrastructure has re-materialised in Pakistan. The other is to limit radicalisation in Pakistan. October 2009. October 2009. Thus. eight years after the 11 September attacks. however concerned the United States was about the Taliban. CONTAINING AL QAEDA AND PREVENTING THE RADICALIZATION OF PAKISTAN ARE OUR PRIMARY INTERESTS IN THIS CONFLICT Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. To be sure. Its relationship to al-Qaeda is far more subtle and complicated than was the Taliban's. they would foment political instability in Pakistan by intensifying popular perceptions of American military occupation of the region and the Pakistani government's complicity with the Americans in suppressing a group that was not even considered an enemy of Pakistan. US officials knew that Pakistan had discreetly supported the Taliban for reasons largely unrelated to al-Qaeda's anti-Western and anti-American designs. subsidiary to that of eliminating Afghanistan as al-Qaeda's sanctuary and the Taliban as its patron.67 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: PAKISTAN IS THE PROBLEM 1. staving off the country's political disintegration and ensuring that a reasonably friendly Pakistani government remains in control and that the country's nuclear arsenal stays out of jihadist hands.47-67.this effort to harness Pakistan as a robust counter-terrorism partner has not succeeded. It was clear even before the 11 September attacks that among Islamist groups.the Taliban . pp. Pakistani officials made clear that they still regard India as their strategic priority 3. Afghanistan was therefore the prime target. THE PROBLEM IS PAKISTAN. INCREASED U. was to enlist Pakistan in ensuring the incapacity of al-Qaeda once coalition forces had succeeded in dislodging it. The question is whether counter-insurgency and state-building in Afghanistan are the best means of executing it. The mere fact that the core threat to US interests now resides in Pakistan rather than Afghanistan casts considerable doubt on the proposition. Islamabad perceives al-Qaeda as a kind of virus: it is ultimately inimical to the Pakistani leadership. "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" SURVIVAL. State Department and Pentagon have thus far not acknowledged publicly the possibility that greater American intrusiveness in Afghanistan might mean less Pakistani cooperation. Another reason is that helping to keep the Taliban a viable political player in Afghanistan serves Pakistan's regional strategic interests in providing Pakistan with strategic depth vis-a-vis India and in denying India a fully stable and cooperative regime there. and thus amounted to a full strategic ally of an enemy. Al-Qaeda remains the biggest threat to the United States in Central and South Asia. and Washington's objective vis-a-vis Pakistan. they still regard India as their top strategic priority and the Taliban militants as little more than a containable nuisance and.to wit. .Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. There is little dispute on this point. and Islamist influences in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate . Pakistan's regional strategic interest in maintaining a degree of instability in Afghanistan. the White House. PRESENCE WILL ONLY UNDERMINE COOPERATION WITH PAKISTAN Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. That. This is one reason that Pakistan's counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency cooperation has been so erratic. Secondly.47-67. Whereas the Taliban embraced al-Qaeda as an economic benefactor in the absence of international legitimacy. after 11 September. potential allies. NOT AFGHANISTAN -. One is to contain and ultimately debilitate al-Qaeda. the American priority was to unseat a regime . But it is more significant in the broader strategic context that Pakistan has objected to expanded US military operations in Afghanistan on two grounds. For a variety of familiar and well-documented reasons . and counter-terrorism is thus still Washington's most pressing task. the secular Pakistani government is not a viable target for the US military.that was providing sanctuary and operational support to al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda posed the most dangerous strategic threat to the United States.ARGUES AGAINST OBAMA'S POLICY Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. Pakistani officials made it clear that. the intensity of Pashtuns' crossborder kinship. but the wrong kind of coercion could cause it to mutate into something more dangerous . October 2009. in a July 2009 briefing. in order to prevent further attacks. pp. in the long term. Firstly.oneparadigm. they would cause a cross-border spillover of militants into Pakistan and increase the counter-insurgency burden on the Pakistani military. Pakistan has pragmatically responded to US pressure to thwart the Taliban in its tribal areas.American military commanders' tactical misjudgements at Tora Bora. Whatever US officials might concede privately. pp. 2.S. however.

significantly reducing the strength of the Taliban. we've got pacification. Ivan alluded to this. the proposed ramp-up of troops. As you move on to the next area. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. accessed 4-9-09.000 additional troops seem like a large number. we'll stand down. Colonel. but there's no way that we can get to that number if we had to. let me focus on Afghanistan although as I said.000. 2. hey. particularly when compared to the 20.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. You may or may not have enough to run an effective counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan.000 and General McCrystal. accessed 4-18-10. but deploy less than half the required number of troops. give or take.ARE BETTER OFF WITHDRAWING Charles Pena. That is what he has tried to do and what he was still trying to do with his West Point speech.000 troops required to run an effective counterinsurgency. The number of troops that would be necessary to "win" may be far greater than the number the president has committed and far greater than the American people would be willing to commit.S. should we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? Rather than belabor the point on Iraq.000 ground forces in the United States Army. And let me walk through an argument as to why that answer is yes. To most. But it may be too late. That's problem number one and a reason why we should withdraw rather than stay. totaling between 60.000. You could combine the active duty army and marines and get to 600. During his campaign. we may prove incapable of accomplishing the tactical mission necessary to accomplish the President's strategic objective.may now be too high. 40. Why? Because there's nobody there minding the store.000 of the Iraq surge. "Can the U.S. 3. but not enough to occupy the country. plus the NATO troops enough to do what in terms of counterinsurgency? Enough to occupy Kabul and keep Karzai ensconced as the mayor.com . then the continuation of the war can't be justified -. I can still win with 30.000 civilians to be able to effectively run a counterinsurgency operation. and it's what history has demonstrated. he said." It's not enough. 12-9-09. and then when you say. and he would focus on Afghanistan. which is by the way the same solution that President Bush proposed in Iraq. It's both the rule of thumb. In Afghanistan. General McCrystal's superior officer. These 100. is we will train the Afghans to take control of their own security.org/online.org/events/transcript.dissentmagazine. We don't have 600.S. So. WINNING WILL SIMPLY TAKE MORE TROOPS THAT THE U. Recent combat action in Afghanistan only serves to reinforce this truth.000 even though I asked for 40. He has replaced the people who did everything wrong in Afghanistan with people who are trying to do everything right. If this highly regarded Colonel is right. TROOPS LEVELS ARE TOO LOW TO RUN A REAL COUNTERINSURGENCY CAMPAIGN -. are the roughly 100. with a population of more than 30 million people. said. Maybe the more appropriate question is. training a national army. I can tell you from what I did see.000 troops. 30. "Is Obama's War in Afghanistan Just?" DISSENT. First of all. "Yes.oneparadigm. You subdue the enemy in one area. stimulating local resistance. Obama promised to correct these mistakes: he would get us out of Iraq. Army. co-editor. OR ITS PUBLIC IS WILLING/ABLE TO COMMIT Michael Walzer. represent the minimum number of troops necessary to effectively conduct the COIN mission in Afghanistan. which is less than what General McCrystal wanted. Those 18 fighting brigades. not enough to run an effective counterinsurgency. GO BIG OR GO DEEP: AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY OPTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN. has saluted. Lt. sir.for it is one of the key criteria of a just war that there be a realistic possibility of achieving a just peace.000 U. Number one. you don't have enough troops to run effective counterinsurgency. And if that is true. 12-3-09. what generally happens is in the place you pacified before. p. . Of course. the significance of his view cannot be overstated: if we attempt to execute a full-blown counterinsurgency fight.S. As they stand up. Davis. That is exactly what President Obama is proposing in Afghanistan. Senior Fellow. being the good general.000 instead of 40.8.68 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: TOO SMALL/NOT ENOUGH TROOPS 1. and it's what General Petraeus. of more than 600.asp?eventID=145. enough maybe to occupy two or three more provinces in Afghanistan. The answer to: should we withdraw? is yes.000 soldiers per every 1. During my time in Afghanistan I did not take part in combat operations but did travel through many parts of the country. and the President and his advisors decided 30. www. a footprint. you're looking at a force. violence erupts there. probably in the neighborhood of 15-20. he wanted 40.000 and 80. 40. THE COUNTERINSURGENCY WILL FAIL BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT SENT ENOUGH TROOPS Daniel L.000. www. After all the mistakes. the solution that the President has proposed. you move on to the next area. combined with the direct combat experience I have had in the past.php?id=314.000. I think at least strategically the logic applies pretty equally to both. troops after the surge.independent.000 is not enough. 10-14-09.000. working with Pakistan to shut down al Qaeda havens across the border -. So what happens when you have a small force trying to run counterinsurgency? You play whack-a-mole. Marine Colonel Dale Alford said at a September counterinsurgency conference in Washington that it would require somewhere on the order of 10 brigades just to train the Afghan National Police (ANP) and another eight to work with the Afghan National Army (ANA) -on top of what we have today. U. You need about 20. wrote in the counterinsurgency manual that the United States military now uses. that COL Alford's assessment is dead on the mark. but according to high ranking officers who have previously commanded combat troops in Afghanistan. the cost of "winning" -.000 additional troops. would also need an appropriate number of support units.

and to create an economic stake that would become available to more Afghans. That analysis.S. the increases are considered a 'surge' to feed greater levels of kinetic operations. He also dispatched 21. 10-1-09.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. But the White House apparently has gotten cold feet about implementing its own strategy. troops to lay the foundation of the new strategy and selected Gen. forces by as many as 40. and the constraints included in it.cfm.69 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: TOO SMALL/NOT ENOUGH TROOPS cont'd 4. THE STATUS QUO F"AILS -.SOVIET EXPERIENCE PROVES IT WILL TAKE A HALF MILLION SOLDIERS TO "PACIFY' THE COUNTRY Milton A. "Obama Risks Failure in Afghanistan by not Sending More Troops. absent a new. In late August McChrystal submitted a situation report that concluded that more U. eventual collapse of the Afghan government. ENSURES A TALIBAN RESURGENCE AND A BLOODY CIVIL WAR James Phillips.gov/testimony/2009/BeardenTestimony091001a. provide more foreign aid and help Afghans build a more effective national government. Bearden. former CIA Station Chief. . such increases could be a good idea. however. TROOPS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH -.com . Thoughtful Soviet post war assessments of their Afghan debacle have concluded that with anything less than half a million troops on the ground. President Obama's decision on how to proceed in Afghanistan is one of the most important he's likely to face in office.oneparadigm. This downsizing of urgently requested troop reinforcements could lead to a dangerous and tragic outcome.000 more U. even with Afghanistan being contiguous to the USSR. Stanley McChrystal to lead the effort. www. troops. an even bloodier civil war.DOES NOT SEND ENOUGH SOLDIERS. http://foreign.org/Press/Commentary/ed120209b. If Obama retreats to a "McChrystal Light" option that shortchanges his own hand-picked commander. announced with much fanfare last March.000 additional troops. Unfortunately it appears that he will risk the success of his administration's new strategy for Afghanistan by providing less troop reinforcements than his military commanders have recommended. broader strategy.000 more troops for a period of three years. 2009. accessed 4-8-10. The current debate seems to center on whether or not to increase U. opting for a commitment to provide 30. build up the Afghan army and police. Moreover. 5. no outside force could expect to "pacify" Afghanistan. it will greatly increase the risk of failure. such a strategy will likely fail as the war escalates.S. Statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. troops were required to carry out the strategy.heritage. resources and U.S. If. renewed humanitarian crisis and a refugee exodus. Islamabad.pdf. the Taliban will bring back not just their ally al-Qaida. The Obama administration deserved praise earlier this year for recognizing that Afghanistan needed more high-level attention. not only in Afghanistan but in the struggle against Islamist radicals in neighboring Pakistan. McChrystal reportedly requested about 40. In March the president announced the adoption of a new counterinsurgency strategy to protect Afghan civilians. but a rogues' gallery of almost every major Islamist insurgent movement in the world today. accessed 3-5-10. senior research fellow.000 more troops. Heritage Foundation." December 2. In reaching that conclusion.senate. A marginal surge in support of a military solution will accomplish little. Soviet analysts were also aware of the sheer impossibility of supporting a force of that size. It could result in a downward spiral of security in Afghanistan: a resurgent Taliban. If the troop increases are intended to advance a new strategy designed to allow a modicum of security and justice to develop. perhaps guided by the Afghans themselves. apply to the American intervention today.S.

the president promises that eighteen months after the buildup is completed.org/newsroom/article. They can afford to be patient. Johnson escalated that failed war in the late 1960s he had several advantages that Obama lacks: a strong economy to pay for the war. commitment will eventually wind down to mollify the American public. forces and their Afghan puppets arises for the most part from the deeply entrenched tribal character of the Afghan people and their implacable desire to rid the country of any and all foreign occupiers.70 1.org/newsroom/article. and a credible South Vietnamese army to do much of the heavy lifting.independent. Political Economy. will only embolden the Afghan Taliban to outwait the United States -.independent. "Troop Surge in Afghanistan a Losing Investment. http://www. public." MCCLATCHY-TRIBU"NE.TIMELINE ONLY MEANS AL QAEDA WILL WAIT US OUT Ivan Eland. Making his Big Push idea even more impenetrable. Senior Fellow. 12-4-09.ARE VIEWED AS OCCUPIERS. the backing of the U. More likely. In fact. when President Lyndon B. 2. Senior Fellow. WE CANNOT WIN IN AFGHANISTAN -.S. http://www. it is a losing investment. THE CURRENT STRATEGY WILL FAIL -." SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER.oneparadigm. which is weary of war and massive government red ink during a recession. One need not have studied the history of the place for a lifetime to have learned this lesson. they are in the fight for the long haul.S. 12-1-09. The war is a no-win situation for the president.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: WAIT US OUT www. Independent Institute. The Independent Institute. accessed 4-13-10. the troops will begin to be withdrawn. . accessed 4-13-10. Signaling that the U.S.com . TALIBAN WILL WAIT US OUT Robert Higgs.asp?id=2674. Does anyone really imagine that the Taliban and other anti-American groups in Afghanistan are too stupid to sit tight and wait for the foreign devils to depart? If these groups are anything.just as the North Vietnamese did in Southeast Asia during the 1960s and 1970s.asp?id=2675. Opposition to the U. "Obama's Wrong Road in Afghanistan.

2. Instead. "What Worked in Iraq Won't Help Afghanistan. A Surge Will Mitigate Insurgents Crossing Into Afghanistan From Pakistan Perhaps in the short-term. www.html. Many Western foreign policy thinkers.com . www. If we look at what has happened in Vietnam in recent years. and social tools. we must think in terms of containing and managing a difficult. at some point.hks. but they will recreate a viable society. whether now or years from now. University of Chicago. politicians. Harvard University.harvard. Pakistan is 20 years ahead of Afghanistan on almost every indicator and is yet to achieve the kind of stability we dream of in Afghanistan. 3." 1-14-09. All require us to forge a long-term engagement with the country.timesonline.BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR IS TO CONTAIN THE CONFLICT Rory Stewart. former Professor of History. But the only long-term solution for the problem of radicalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be predicated on soldiers policing the vast border between the two countries. the Afghans will find their way back to their traditional way of governing themselves. the Afghans will face this challenge. There are many small simple things we can do to help Afghan society. TROOPS CANNOT SOLVE AF-PAK BORDER CROSSINGS Tyler Moselle. 3-17-09.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5920064. AFGHANS WILL FIND A WAY TO GOVERN THEMSELVES AFTER WE WITHDRAW William Polk. "How to Get Out of Afghanistan. This will not be exactly our way.ece. We must husband our resources for the many other crises already erupting . accessed 4-8-10. of course. But such a policy is only possible if we reduce our investment in money and troops and develop a lighter.us/articles/120371. 11-23-09. Ryan Professor of Human Rights. accessed 4-8-10.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. accessed 4-19-10. I have argued that if we get out soon and provide help for the transition.pdf. Pakistan must be enticed into dealing with the Pakistani Taliban through political. more affordable and ultimately more sustainable relationship with Afghanistan." HISTORY NEWS NETWORK. Kennedy School of Government. And. Once the horrors of war recede in memory.71 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "AFGHANISTAN STABILIZATION" 1.from the British banking sector to Pakistan. the joys of peace become powerful forces. . economic. poor and unstable country without sinking too much into this difficult task.oneparadigm. and military planners romantically believe that more force can stabilize and fix the country. Research Associate." TIMES. America cannot solve the problem of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan with more military force.S. U. But even this is implausible. Harvard University. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. we have reason to believe in political evolution. in any event. "6 Fallacies of a Surge in Afghanistan. Conclusion: The surge is not a panacea and may even be counterproductive in its current form. http://hnn. Policymakers are now more cautious about Afghanistan and say that their only objective is stability.edu/cchrp/editorial/2009/SixFallacies_Moselle. my judgment is that the sooner it happens the more likely and the quicker is achievement of an acceptable degree of success. The incoming Obama foreign and defense policy team must look far beyond the surge for solutions to the problems in Afghanistan. AFGHANISTAN CANNOT BE STABILIZED IN EVEN THE MEDIUM-TURN -.co.

noted in his resignation letter that he "fail[s] to see the value or the worth in continued U. Statement before the House Foreign Relations Committee. a clearer civil-military delineation is required with more effective political efforts. Government in Zabul Province.000 would equal three to four times the country's total GDP. by association with a foreign military. www.72 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "AFGHANIZATION/TRAINING SOLVES" 1. http://www.S. Hoh went on to write that "[L]ike the Soviets. increasing the ANSF to 400. Consideration should be given to keeping the numbers smaller so that soldiers and leaders of the ANSF have the chance to gain the necessary level of experience and focused training from our limited number of advisors. It is time to leave Afghanistan. Thus. Army. TRAINING EFFORTS WILL FAIL -. . 10-14-09. truly. But without properly trained officers and non-commissioned officers to lead those men they will not be effective in combat. GO BIG OR GO DEEP: AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY OPTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN. By some estimates. as noted above.campaignforliberty. and the population's security are critical.ARE TRAINING ONLY MINORITY SOLDIERS. Even in the United States it takes more than 15 years to "grow" a battalion commander. To now try and accelerate the creation of the ANSF by hundreds of thousands in order to help us with the fight is risky business. A large number of ill-trained and poorly led soldiers have no chance against a much smaller. in which international forces increasingly engage with Afghan civilians. well led and highly experienced insurgent force.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.com/article. GO BIG OR GO DEEP: AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY OPTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN.php?view=435. Afghanistan is no different." I am afraid the only solution to the Afghanistan quagmire is a rapid and complete US withdrawal from that country and the region." I have always opposed nation-building as unconstitutional and ineffective. Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee. It might be possible to field 400. Building Afghan security forces is a long?term endeavor. while encouraging an ideology and system of government unknown and unwanted by [the Afghan] people. Raising an army and police to those numbers requires not simply a bunch of men wearing uniforms. in which both sides lose credibility: the military by association with a corrupt and unjust government. then. Harvard University. and does not address the core issues. We cannot afford to maintain this empire and our occupation of these foreign lands is not making us any safer.com .oneparadigm." Mr. TRAINING IS DOOMED TO FAILURE -.S. 10-14-09. portrayed as an aggressor. Kennedy School of Government. Without a real strategy in Afghanistan. Army. But experts have noted that the ranks of the Afghan national army are increasingly being filled by the Tajik minority at the expense of the Pashtun plurality.15-16.hks. 10-22-09. As a means of comparison.pdf. General McChrystal is right that government legitimacy. U. and prioritizing quantity over quality could prove counter-productive. U. p. Colonel. battalions. Supporters of this surge argue that we must train an Afghan national army to take over and strengthen the rule and authority of Kabul. let us consider what happened when a similar effort was undertaken in Iraq. who resigned as Senior Civilian Representative for the U. 2. Numbers of soldiers is only one reason to consider keeping the numbers smaller. plays into insurgent hands. and brigades necessary to organize that many men. if the President approves General McChrystal's request to grow Afghan forces.S. which lie outside the core competency of the military. accessed 4-8-10.harvard. but capable leaders at multiple echelons. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. mobile. WILL NOT STOP A CIVIL WAR -WE SHOULD JUST WITHDRAW Ron Paul. the country is massively illiterate and presently no major effort has been started to redress that deficiency. 4. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is. Lt. In order to undertake this mission we must do so with the tacit understanding that we will be signing up for well over a decade of mentoring. Lt. a 35-year old civil war. BUILDING AN AFGHAN ARMY WILL BE ENORMOUSLY EXPENSIVE Daniel L. 3.S. someone is going to have to sign up to pay for those troops and commit to doing so for the duration they are at that level. international forces have a limited capacity to address these issues. Colonel.S. 12-10-09. OUR CURRENT TRAINING STRATEGY ONLY PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF THE INSURGENCY Matt Waldman. Moreover. attributes unrealistic capabilities to soldiers. accessed 4-8-10. training and advising the ANSF. First. the US will stand down. Representative. Davis. we continue to secure and bolster a failing state. U. Davis. US diplomat Matthew Hoh.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/WaldmanTestimony. The other: money. Fellow. without a vision of what victory will look like. anything short of that will create the potential for disaster. Without question.15. the military and Afghan government are apparently caught in a mutually detrimental relationship. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.000 men to fill the uniforms and physically create the huge number of companies. In fact. the government.INABILITY TO BUILD AN OFFICER CORPS Daniel L. we are left with the empty rhetoric of the last administration that "when the Afghan people stand up. his proposal for a more integrated approach. However. p.

Chair.net/paul-rogers/afghanistan-new-strategy-old-problem. Afghanistan has been conquered many times. We must also invest more in education and agriculture development.com . Furthermore. Columbia University. Saying that we now can do better is a dubious proposition at best. of course." DISSENT. and the more U. which really means containing the Taliban in urban areas until the Afghan security forces are up to speed. Senior Fellow. I think you have to go probably back to the Persian Cyrus to find anyone who has actually controlled Afghanistan. He notes that the Afghan state is too weak to build the support needed for a robust counterinsurgency campaign and that NATO may not have the training. the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.of a quarter of the entire force in a single year.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. EVEN WITH TRAINING. the U. The upgrading of the Afghan army (whose current nominal strength is 94. meanwhile. corrupt. and drug ravaged.000 police and military in Afghanistan?" The chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But. 7. said flatly in September that in the near or middle term. WE CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY TRAIN THE AFGHAN ARMY Erik Leaver. no matter how many trainers McChrystal sends. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.DEFECTIONS.S.dissentmagazine. CORRUPTION. all of the surge troops will not be in place until the fall of next year giving them only nine short months until the withdrawal supposedly begins. 6.S.org/online. or infiltrated by Taliban and other militias. it took roughly five years to create a somewhat functional security apparatus and that was in a country with a tradition of a professional army and a reasonably well-educated population -. McChrystal's plan is highly dependent on the training of the Afghan National Army (ANA). WILL TAKE MANY YEARS BEFORE THE AFGHAN ARMY CAN TAKE OVER SECURITY Ivan Eland.000 Afghans instead of the 400.php?id=305.a key component of the Obama strategy. The problem is subduing it and controlling it. we're only going to train 240. limited to training the Afghan forces and helping them hold major cities. www. even as the United States has spent $17. military has backhandedly admitted that it can't win in Afghanistan but hopes the surge will allow it to "disrupt and degrade" the Taliban.000) has been severely compromised by the lack of an officer corps. Now. troops in Afghanistan who has asked for an as yet unspecified number of new soldiers. and it will take much longer than even the five years that Karzai has specified for them to be able to secure the country by themselves. and one of the reasons for that is there are disparate groups living spread out.73 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "AFGHANIZATION/TRAINING SOLVES" cont'd 5. Institute for Policy Studies. PhD Program. . said we had to "find a way to expand and accelerate the training of the Afghan security forces. The Afghan forces are small. "Getting Out of Afghanistan. Now. Even if General Stanley McChrystal.yesmagazine. of course." 8. Carl Levin.Afghanistan has neither. TRAINING WILL FAIL -. efforts to train the Afghan security forces .oneparadigm.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan. TALIBAN INFILTRATION Paul Rogers. "How to Exit Afghanistan. 10-13-09. http://www." YES! MAGAZINE. Admiral Mullen. gets all of the troops he wants. THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN TRAIN AN AFGHAN FORCE TO TAKE OVER SECURITY IN EVEN THE MEDIUM-TERM Todd Gitlin. or motivation for success. Such training has been a dismal failure in the past eight years. and by the loss . Communication. How long will it take to train 400. "Afghanistan: New Strategy. accessed 4-18-10. www.opendemocracy. many members of the police service are inefficient and corrupt.asp?eventID=145. "Can the U. which it rarely has been. www. is the mission possible? McChrystal's counterinsurgency strategy seems unobtainable.are in trouble." Sounds dandy. incompetent. even in his own review. in that its successful completion would allow a plausible withdrawal from 2011 . troops we put in there the less incentive the Afghans have to train forces themselves. accessed 4-18-10.S. SO WHERE are we? In September.independent.org/events/transcript. 12-9-09. 12-3-09. equipment. and ensuring that al-Qaeda does not regroup. Indeed. Afghanistan is causing some experts to question NATO's ability to last much beyond its 60th anniversary this year. for that is a way over time to peel Pashtuns away from the Taliban." OPENDEMOCRACY.through desertions or resignations . The problem in Afghanistan contrary to what people believe is that you can't conquer Afghanistan. the commander of U. It's very difficult to control this type of a collection of different people. But as Michael Cohen has written." Nicholas Kristof added: "We need to continue our presence with a lighter military footprint. accessed 4-9-10.000 that McCrystal proposed. "in Iraq.S. accessed 4-18-10. there is no reasonable "prospect that trained Afghan security forces can handle the bulk of the fighting. 10-1-09.6 billion instructing the ANA. Second. Rebuilding the Afghan military is no small task. Old Problem.

asp?id=2675. Creating capable Afghan security forces will take much longer than the five years Afghan President Hamid Karzai set as a reasonable timetable. U. throwing tens of thousands out of work. "Troop Surge in Afghanistan a Losing Investment.asp?id=2674. he suggests.S.independent. The vast sum of money expended. but to gain a propaganda victory. By withdrawing conventional forces from the countryside.S. would be similar to what followed the US failure to reassemble the Iraqi Army after the invasion of March 2003.atimes. BUILDING A REAL AFGHAN ARMY WILL COST TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS Gareth Porter." the Pakistani government.oneparadigm. the Americans should get out of Afghanistan immediately. WILL TAKE FAR LONGER THAN FIVE YEARS TO TRAIN A SECURITY FORCE Ivan Eland.org/newsroom/article. Afghans have only been rented for as long as the dollars keep flowing. "It would be irresponsible to increase the size of the military to that level.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ17Df03. Political Economy. The Independent Institute. http://www. Not 'Big'. Senior Fellow. authorities declare that they will accomplish their mission by building up "legitimate" government troops and police. A clear-thinking president would steer clear of trying to accomplish the impossible. 10. U." ASIA TIMES. to counter India's influence in the area. accessed 4-13-10. he suggests. Typically insurgents attack US positions not for any tactical military objective.S. The strategy would also provide support for improved Afghan governance and training for security forces." and our "ally." he writes. represents forgone opportunities forever sacrificed.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. To curtail their losses." MCCLATCHY-TRIBU"NE. Obama's Big Push looks like a military analogue to the basic economic mistake of throwing good money after bad.GOVERNMENT IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO DEFEAT AL QAEDA. giving them field training and weapons. The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of US and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the country. Davis writes. . "convincing hundreds of thousands of additional Afghan men to join.S.com . Davis also cites "growing anecdotal evidence" that popular anger at the abuses of power by the Afghan National Police has increased support for the insurgency.independent.org/newsroom/article. The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives. As in other occupied countries. The war in Afghanistan is not winnable in any meaningful sense.74 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "AFGHANIZATION/TRAINING SOLVES" cont'd 9. accessed 4-18-09. Davis argues that a large and growing US military presence would make it more difficult to achieve this counterterrorism objective. 10-17-09. in Afghanistan. It would leave US Special Forces and their supporting units. "Going 'Deep'. by training and equipping them until they are strong enough to whip the insurgents. 12-1-09. ARE SIMPLY BETTER OFF GETTING OUT Robert Higgs. Independent Institute. The "Go Deep" strategy outlined in the paper appears to parallel the shift in strategy from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism being proposed by some officials in discussions in the White House in recent weeks. It's a pure waste. The problem is not that the "legitimate" side is not strong enough or trained well enough to defeat the "bad guys. http://www." SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER. This plan is no more promising in Afghanistan than it was in Vietnam. 11. TRAINING WILL NOT WORK -. and then at some point suddenly cease funding. so far with absolutely nothing of genuine worth to show for it. is unlikely to crack down on the Afghan Taliban's sanctuaries in Pakistan because Pakistan will want a pro-Pakistan Taliban government in Afghanistan when the U." The pro-U. Senior Fellow. and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide protection for US personnel. US strategy would deprive the insurgents of "easily identifiable and lucrative targets against which to launch attacks".html. suffered at a time when the American people have a multitude of more urgent needs. Karzai is a seriously flawed "partner." The result. "Obama's Wrong Road in Afghanistan. The more than 800 American servicemen who have already died in Afghanistan cannot be brought back to life. eventually leaves. www. 12-4-09. policy makers talk as if they lack the wit to comprehend these elementary facts. accessed 4-13-10.

11-13-08. such as his brother-in-law) now embrace expanded opium production and heroin export. accessed 4-19-10. it is a war that protects the beneficiaries of the narco-state that has already emerged." JAPAN FOCUS.oneparadigm. far from this war being fought to prevent Afghanistan becoming a narco-state. accessed 4-9-10. opium accounts for almost one-half of Afghanistan's gross domestic product. and it will reduce the flow of one of the deadliest drugs in the world. to the United States and Europe. While the Taliban government in the years just before its fall banned opium production. which it has now decided to do. under economic and security conditions that offer little alternative for survival. and leave. The "farm-gate" value of the opium harvest is now estimated to amount to about 13% of GDP. roughly a third of the country's total GDP. as well as government figures (including those close to the president. Defense and Foreign Policy Studies. The war in Afghanistan is like the war on drugs: It can be fought endlessly.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3. say. Lose-lose. In reality. . In the short-term. that there is no credible evidence that al Qaeda derives significant revenues from narcotics trafficking. Taxes levied on the opium trade are a major source of revenue for the Taliban. Thus. Senior Research Associate. Mr. 9-21-09. As a matter of fact. Cato Institute.org/-Richard-Tanter/2948. Sociology and Anthropology. November/December 2009. If the United States attacks the opium trade. 3. And it would be a much shorter list to cite the ones who are not. THE WAR IS ACTUALLY PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE NARCO-TRAFFICKERS Richard Tanter.thebulletin. and for how long. WE DO NOT NEED TO WIN THE DRUG WAR TO COUNTER THE INSURGENCY Ted Galen Carpenter. Afghanistan supplies 93 percent of the world's opium. the United States has two reasons to eradicate opium cultivation in Afghanistan: It will cut off a source of revenue for the Taliban. And lest we think that it's just the insurgents who benefit from narcotics revenues. The only question is how many Americans and Afghans will die. is there any alternative to the proposal of the International Council on Security and Development (formerly Senlis Council) and others to legalise opium production for medicinal morphine? 2. mothers buy food with it.html. Vice President. it will be assuring the Taliban a steady source of revenue. are a pervasive part of Afghanistan's economy. This is another mission into which we have seemingly drifted. DEA agents do. pro-government factions are in the trade up to their eyeballs. Eradication policies worsen the situation. debating the metrics by which it will be measured. "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT.com . the emergence of a new Golden Triangle in southern Afghanistan raises a short-term Afghanistan question and a long-term question of domestic policy in their own countries. But if it leaves the opium trade alone. Apart from a small recent dip attributable to bad weather. Indeed. www. This is surreal. George Mason University. heroin. The White House is speaking of victory in Afghanistan. President. Afghan citizens don't feel the same way about opium as. For members of the western coalition. it might as well open recruiting stations for the Taliban.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Islamist groups. Say our job is done now. accessed 4-6-09.) The Taliban does. before we concede defeat. Finally. victory isn't possible.75 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "DRUG WAR" 1. Secondly. we don't need to win a war on drugs in Afghanistan to accomplish our core security objective. but it cannot be won. just about everybody else in Afghanistan does. Nautillus Institute for Security and Sustainability. http://www. www. "Why the War in Afghanistan Cannot Be Won. THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THE OPIUM TRADE AND DEFEAT THE TALIBAN -. Illegal drugs. (That startled even me. "The Coming Catastrophe: the American War in Afghanistan and Pakistan. opium production continues to expand. feeding the budgets of both sides of the conflict. it would be much easier to draw up a list of prominent Afghan political figures who are not involved in the drug trade than it would to draw up a list of the ones who are.japanfocus. and opium is so deeply entrenched in Afghan life that it functions as a sort of reserve currency: Children buy candy with it.BOTH AVAILABLE OPTIONS ONLY HURT OUR INTERESTS Hugh Gusterson. By some estimates. men pay barbers with it. According to the Associated Press. namely. Unless defeat is redefined as triumph. and many "drug-policy" programs simply serve to enrich a fabulously corrupt few and impoverish many. Professor." BULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS. whether we like it or not. An August report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee made a startling admission.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/why-the-war-afghanistan-cannot-be-won. there is the prohibitionist paradox. with about half a million households now dependent on opium production.cato. However.

000) for their jobs and need bribes from narcotics smugglers to pay this off and turn a profit. as Mr Obama suggests. leaving a tremendous power vacuum behind.76 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "GOVERNMENT REFORMS/ACCOUNTABILITY" 1. the more bad leaders we will inadvertently create.independent. government says no. But this would convince many Afghans that the US calls the shots and Afghanistan is under military occupation. A key goal of the U.S. accessed 4-18-10. We are hoping that good leadership wins out in Afghanistan. 3. to say the least." THE INDEPENDENT." Campaign for Liberty. 9-15-09. are.S. www.huffingtonpost. What will the US do if the Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government refuses to become less crooked? Mr Karzai has learned from his success in defying the US and its allies over the fraudulent presidential election in August that he has a strong hand. Soviet troops were also in Afghanistan at the request of an Afghan government. President Karzai has asked for an agreement governing the conduct of foreign forces. accessed 4-8-10. But key decisions about these questions aren't being made in Kabul. War does not quell bad leaders. But one of the principal barriers to the perception of the Afghan government as legitimate is the indefinite military occupation of Afghanistan by the United States and its allies. It might. . OCCUPATION UNDERMINES THE LEGITIMACY OF THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT." HUFFINGTON POST. "US May Come to Regret Its Pledge to Withdraw. Things are getting worse precisely because we are sending more troops and escalating the violence. ESCALATING THE CONFLICT ONLY WORSENS AFGHANISTAN'S LEADERSHIP Ron Paul. The truth is it is no coincidence that the more troops we send the worse things get. "Saving Face in Afghanistan. The United States government ignores him. when it doesn't have effective input into key decisions affecting the country's welfare? It may seem anachronistic at this particular political moment to speak about the legitimacy of the Afghan government in the wake of the widespread allegations of fraud in the recent election. They are not going to going to go out of business to please Mr Obama. governors and local leaders and try to marginalise Mr Karzai. After all.campaignforliberty. government is that the government of Afghanistan be perceived as legitimate.com/robert-naiman/withdraw-from-afghanistan_b_286866.WE CANNOT CHANGE HIS BEHAVIOR Patrick Cockburn.000 (. "Withdraw from Afghanistan with a Public. whether and how the war should continue.S.php?view=270. Policy Director.html. U. 12-3-09.html. The US cannot get rid of Mr Karzai because it has no alternative to him. UNDERMINING STABILITY Robert Naiman. and the United States called that an occupation. 2.com/article. From the point of view of an Afghan citizen. The Afghan state machine is wholly corrupt. www. How can the Afghan government be perceived as legitimate.com .Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. It creates them. President Karzai says there should be negotiations with top leaders of the insurgency.co. Q. U. Negotiated Timetable. but the pool of potential honest leaders from which to draw have been fleeing the violence. Representative. www.uk/news/world/politics/us-may-come-to-regret-its-pledge-to-withdraw-1833132.S. And the more war we visit on this country. 10-14-09.90. But this moment will pass. accessed 4-8-10. U. The U.oneparadigm. KARZAI IS CORRUPT AND FEELS STRONG -. among the most important questions of public policy that the country faces.S. Without a government perceived as legitimate to invite their presence. troops cannot remain in Afghanistan. Just Foreign Policy. Police chiefs on the border pay $150. whether and how and with whom in the insurgency there should be negotiations. The United States has an urgent interest in working out a deal. deal directly with Afghan ministries.

S. Now. military's own rules of counterinsurgency warfare. of course. of course. Senior Fellow. we've had eight years where the U. conditions on the ground are nothing like that of Iraq of early 2007 and there is little reason to believe the tactical success achieved by the Iraq surge could be repeated today in Afghanistan. and there are fewer forces there. The hidden message there is we're going to contain but not defeat the Taliban.S.000 additional fighters would likely be insufficient to militarily stem the tide. he is assuming that the surge in Iraq worked. Senior Fellow. Davis. "Can the U. There is presently no successful "Sons of Iraq". p. and of course in Afghanistan we have the corrupt Karzai government who stole the election and rules only Kabul so much of Afghanistan is effectively run by the Taliban. accessed 4-18-10. of course. The U. Of course. it was this surge that is perceived to have stabilized Iraq. who was against a surge in Iraq. NO REASON IT WILL WORK IN AFGHANISTAN Ivan Eland. the tribal leadership is weaker in Afghanistan than in Iraq and there is no Awakening Movement in Afghanistan. valleys and mountains. has alienated many Sunnis in Iraq. In addition. The Taliban are Afghans who for the most part don't target civilians where as Al Qaeda in Iraq is led by foreigners and does purposefully attack civilians to stir up ethno-sectarian hatred.CONDITIONS ON THE GROUND ARE FAR DIFFERENT Daniel L.000 troops in Afghanistan to be effective. and the assassinations. Afghanistan is mountainous. is likely to leave as the President signaled his intention to at least start pulling out troops by 2011. 12-9-09. Now. Colonel. 3. THE SURGE DID NOT WORK IN IRAQ.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Number one. the civil war.com . In 2009 Afghanistan today. Now. I think we see the daunting task ahead. So.S. Now. Army. 12-9-09. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.S. Iraq is flat. Here are some of the reasons: The Taliban has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq. REPLICATION OF THE 'SURGE' SUCCESS WON'T HAPPEN -. and the President.oneparadigm. GO BIG OR GO DEEP: AN ANALYSIS OF STRATEGY OPTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN. This happened during the Bush administration. Yet a similar surge of a similar number of troops during 2005 didn't quell Iraqi violence at all. The insurgency in Afghanistan today is spread over hundreds of thousands of square miles of inhospitable terrain and even 40.org/events/transcript. the Afghan Taliban have a sanctuary in Pakistan. but the basic principle is that we're way under that and there's no hope that we'll ever get up that high. the question is can you transplant that to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a much different country and a much harder fight to win. the President's Afghan plan has some problems as I see it. Now. but which only goes after the Pakistani Taliban and not the Afghan Taliban. has oscillated between a kinetic counter-terrorism strategy and a counter-insurgency strategy that tries to protect people. Because of the war. SURGE CANNOT BE REPLICATED IN AFGHANISTAN -. accessed 4-18-10. of course.77 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "IRAQ SURGE PROVES" 1.type operation that would remove large numbers of enemy fighters from the streets. stabilize the cities. in addition.asp?eventID=145. No large segment of the insurgency has indicated any interest in establishing a ceasefire with allied forces. in Iraq the insurgency was primarily urban whereas in Afghanistan it's rural. FAR MORE DIFFICULT FIGHT Ivan Eland.S. 10-14-09. even if the surge had been the deciding factor in the reduction of Iraqi violence. and that this same type of surge can be duplicated in Afghanistan. which I believe will be temporary. That. The plan seems to be surge.independent. is now imitating that same surge in Afghanistan. Now. and win time to train the Afghan security forces.independent. and we've seen the last oscillation of that. making it much easier for the guerrillas.asp?eventID=145. Unlike Iraq. there was also the fact that there was so much ethnic cleansing that the warring ethno-sectarian factions were separated. military doesn't like to admit that it simply paid the Sunni tribes to change sides and that this was the real factor and main reason for the reduction in violence in Iraq. . Now. what prompted this forum was that the President recently gave a John Kerry-like speech last Tuesday that essentially said we will escalate the war before we deescalate it. of course that's a rule of thumb. the Afghan Taliban is always useful to the Pakistani government to counter the Indian influence in Afghanistan. "Can the U. which everybody seems to think happened or at least many people do. According to the U.org/events/transcript. would have to have nearly 600. So that was I think a message to elements of the Pakistani military that they should keep supporting the Afghan Taliban. U. which is supposedly our ally.S.S. www.6. www. Afghanistan is a bigger country. the U. has more people than Iraq. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.MUCH DIFFERENT SITUATION. and now it's happening again in the Obama administration that we're moving back to a counter-insurgency strategy.S. Lt. especially when the U. 2.

oneparadigm." TIMES. The Sunni sheikhs of Anbar province turned on al-Qa'ida because they were paid to do so. broadly speaking.perhaps a tribal chief. 2009. predominant under the rule of Saddam Hussein. The Shia-run Government in Baghdad could cut a deal with the Sunni groups because they are both relatively powerful and coherent factions backed by mass politics. www. the U. Similarly. forces to al-Qaeda are probably more likely reasons for the lower violence. Q. senior fellow and Director. accessed 4-8-10. maybe the police chief or sub-district commander. has a more zealous insurgency than Iraq.timesonline.uk/news/world/politics/us-may-come-to-regret-its-pledge-to-withdraw-1833132.78 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "IRAQ SURGE PROVES" cont'd 4." The Independent Institute. we forget that these groups are more insubstantial and fragmented than we acknowledge. the U. www. They do not have mass movements behind them. Iraq's underlying ethno-sectarian fissures remain. Center on Peace & Liberty.independent. "Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan. U. 5. IRAQ ANALOGIES ARE FALSE -.php?view=435. SANCTUARY.S.S. Besides. but I dispute the success propaganda about Iraq.IRAQ IS BREAKING DOWN AS WE SPEAK Ron Paul. it is far from clear that the surge in Iraq worked. fighting against the US occupation.000 extra US troops sent under President Bush's "surge" was marginal in stamping out the insurrection. Go to a town in Afghanistan and ask who is in charge and you find six or seven figures with varying sorts of power . the Taliban is elusive. WHAT MADE THE "SURGE" SUCCESSFUL IN IRAQ IS NOT PRESENT IN AFGHANISTAN Patrick Cockburn. Here the Sunni were wholly defeated. accessed 4-18-10. October 8.and all neighborhoods of Christians. POOR GOVERNANCE Ivan Eland. This is. Representative. We are increasingly seeing this "success" breaking down: sectarian violence is flaring up and this time the various groups are better armed with US-provided weapons. The Afghan groups do not resemble the Vietcong or the Sunni tribal groups in Iraq. In defeat the Sunni moved from being the enemy to the ally of the Americans. And now Afghanistan will likely have an illegitimate government. www. and violence will likely erupt again when the U.co. and violence increased. 12-3-09. Proponents of the president's Afghanistan escalation cite the successful "surge" in Iraq as evidence that this second surge will have similar results.html. "What Worked in Iraq Won't Help Afghanistan. Most of the two million Iraqi refugees are probably Sunni. In 2005. a surge in Afghanistan to match the "successful" surge in Iraq is not likely to work because Afghanistan is a larger country with guerilla-friendly mountainous terrain. One was the Sunni Arab community. 12-10-09. Whether Obama takes the politically incorrect and unlikely route of firing McChrystal.com . So I am skeptical about reports on the success of the Iraqi surge.asp?id=2633.com/article.ece.S.org/newsroom/article. Ryan Professor of Human Rights. the insurgents paid by the US to stop their attacks are increasingly restive now that the Iraqi government is no longer paying bribes on a regular basis. This insurgency was fairly successful. I fear they might be correct about the similar result. The US increased troop numbers to drive them to the table to make concessions. what Henry Kissinger believed of the Vietcong in 1968. also conducted a similar troop surge in Iraq. feared an al-Qa'ida takeover and knew that their attacks on the Shia was counter-productive. Prior ethnic cleansing and paying off Sunni guerilla to redirect their belligerence from U.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. ." THE INDEPENDENT. Go to any southern Iraqi town and you will find a man in a buttoned-up shirt without a tie who says: "I am the head of this party" and who can mobilise thousands. First.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5920064.independent. must face two stark facts. "US May Come to Regret Its Pledge to Withdraw. accessed 4-8-10. draws down its forces. 7. accessed 3-4-10. Statement before the House Foreign Relations Committee. How far is the US army deluding itself that it won a military victory in Iraq through "the surge" and this success can be repeated in Afghanistan? There were two wars in Iraq from 2003.S. IRAQ SURGE DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE CURRENT POLICY WILL WORK -. 6. which is likely to be temporary.DIFFERENCES IN LOCAL POWER STRUCTURES MEAN A SURGE WON'T WORK Rory Stewart. Baghdad city is now at least four-fifths Shia. Neither approach will work.co. The 28. the country's security is fragile. A SURGE WILL NOT WORK -. All these factors are not going to be repeated in Afghanistan. The second was the Sunni Arabs (20 per cent of Iraqis) against the Shia Arabs (60 per cent of Iraqis).S. the violence in Iraq only temporarily subsided with the completion of the ethnic cleansing of Shi'ites from Sunni neighborhoods and vice versa -. Those Sunni fighters who remained were easily turned against the foreign al-Qaeda presence when offered US money and weapons. In fact. Harvard University. When we talk about driving the Taliban to the table.DIFFERENT TERRAIN. The Kabul Government lacks political depth or legitimacy. and where the insurgency has a sanctuary (in Pakistan).campaignforliberty. 3-17-09. The more cynical explanation is that the surge is an attempt to whack the Taliban round the head because they will not negotiate unless they are hurting. www.

in Pakistan's latest offensive in South Waziristan it is clear that their military has no intention of going after the original Afghan Taliban.oneparadigm. derives from an inability of the U.79 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "PAKISTAN LEVERAGE" 1.however it is defined -. That. While a larger US military footprint might help stabilise Afghanistan in the short term. is going to once again abandon Afghanistan. Nothing like this is going to happen. Cato Institute. not the solution. in their minds.php?pub_id=11027. http://www. the Pakistani leadership understands all too well that no foreign army is going to stay in Afghanistan forever. policymakers cannot offer any array of inducements sufficient enough to persuade Pakistan to relinquish support for proxies with whom they have associated for the past 30 years. Moreover. 'NEGOTIATING STRENGTH' ARGUMENTS ARE FALSE -. We should be asking "Why should they?" at least according to their own decision making calculus. although not precipitously. "A Costly Mistake. This means stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan -. And an aggressive internationalist approach to spreading democracy and the rule of law. they have also reinforced al Qaeda's Pashtun base of support and further radicalized the very jihadist forces America seeks to defeat. Insofar as it favours collective action by major powers with the unambiguous endorsement of the UN Security Council. it is more likely to hurt than help." ZNET. MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT TO DEFEAT AL QAEDA Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson. Pakistan will continue to nurture the Afghan Taliban precisely because it remains their preferred option for exerting long-term influence in Afghanistan.org/pub_display. December 2. and the multilateral use of force for humanitarian intervention. because that's the key. This outcome.zmag.com . foreign policy analyst. moreover. "Afghanistan: How Much is Enough?" SURVIVAL. 2009. To the extent that this mindset was premised on an expansion of the rule of law to hitherto poorly and unjustly governed areas.S. to tamping down their own domestic Taliban insurgency. accessed 3-4-10. increasing rather than decreasing pressure on India to act in the breach of American ineffectuality. After all.S.S. accessed 3-5-10. This is an issue that must be resolved diplomatically. leadership to see itself as those in the region see it: Pakistan's leadership sees the American presence as the problem. too. is admirable and in some instances appropriate. In this case. What's Obama going to be saying a year from now? 3. October 2009. would frustrate both core American objectives by rendering it politically far more difficult for the Pakistani government to cooperate with Washington (and easier for the quasi-independent Inter-Services Intelligence to collude with the Taliban and al-Qaeda). It appears (at least to this author) that U.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Related myths abound: My favorite is the idea that Pakistan is only coddling the Afghan Taliban because it fears that the U. http://www. the generals in Rawalpindi will go to war against the Afghan Taliban. such as Somalia and Bosnia. it is also consistent with the Obama administration's rejection of Bush-era unilateralism. 2009. "The Fiction at the Heart of Obama's Afghan Surge. and that therefore." HUFFINGTON POST. however.MEANS IT IS DOOMED TO FAILURE Malou Innocent. 2. not militarily.47-67. The Obama administration's instincts favouring robust counter-insurgency and state-building in Afghanistan reflect the 1990s-era US and European predilection for peacekeeping.org/znet/viewArticle/23325.S. drone strikes in Pakistan's restive tribal areas have killed a number of high-value al Qaeda operatives. much less al Qaeda. it reflects the broader conception of counter-terrorism adopted after 11 September.S. reconstruction and stabilization. It would also increase radicalisation in Pakistan. in turn.PAKISTAN WILL SUPPORT THE TALIBAN BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR INTERESTS Tony Karon.UNDERMINES ITS COOPERATION.will not be achieved until Islamabad realizes that its future security does not lie in covertly funding Islamist proxies. Instead. Even if they did want the Americans to stay. ESCALATION WILL NOT PROVIDE THE LEVERAGE NECESSARY TO CHANGE PAKISTANI POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN -. the effects of collateral damage and the aura of US domination it would generate would also intensify anti-Americanism in Pakistan. And any dialogue would have to address India's increasing influence in Afghanistan. which Pakistan has always viewed as its backyard. . to leave. notwithstanding the shortsightedness and inefficacy of the Bush doctrine. it looks like we're going to be fed a pile of myths about the Afghans taking responsibility yada yada yada. thus making it harder for the United States to defeat al-Qaeda. while U. America's long-term economic slide makes expeditionary wars an increasingly untenable burden. Pakistan has very different objectives in Afghanistan. That much should have been abundantly clear to all but the most deluded in Washington by now. imperil the regime and raise proliferation risks. deployed to positive effect in the Balkans and withheld tragically in Rwanda. if America signals "resolve".cato. pp. December 10. ESCALATION ONLY RADICALIZES PAKISTAN -. The generals who run Pakistan want the U.

American forces do not want to occupy 3. US and foreign occupation forces do not directly support such a process and only serve to delude American politicians and citizens into believing we are contributing to something positive in the region. A SURGE CANNOT FORCE A POLITICAL SOLUTION -. Pakistan and the Central Asian states will be vital in guaranteeing a confederal constitution that respects ethnic and religious diversity. American domestic political sensibilities will not support such an intense and long-term effort nor will the deepening economic recession." ZNET. Research Associate. and religious leaders in Afghanistan must be enticed or coaxed into a factionalized political federation to provide stability for the country. True.harvard. www. Its failure has revived the Taliban and increasingly the Pashtuns are uniting behind it. The multitude of tribes. ANY POLITICAL SOLUTION WILL HAVE TO BE ORGANIC -. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. an increased number of troops feed the propaganda machine of the Taliban and al Qaeda affiliates who claim they are killing infidels and rebelling against a foreign occupation. author.com . http://www. accessed 4-8-10. 2.yet sustained support to aid this long and difficult process. Insecurity due to Taliban attacks must be combated by the citizens of Afghanistan based on alliances between tribes. Moreover.zcommunications. and prop up the Afghan government until it can stand on its own feet with its own national military and police forces.org/the-case-for-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-by-tariq-ali. al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists. "Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan.edu/cchrp/editorial/2009/SixFallacies_Moselle. Ironically. accessed 4-8-10. but their capture will be the result of effective police work. accessed 3-10-10. The lesson here. The NATO occupation has not made this task easy. Thoughtful proponents of increasing US troops argue that Afghanistan requires more military forces to counter the Taliban. INCREASED TROOP PRESENCE ONLY UNDERMINES THE PROSPECTS FOR A POLITICAL SOLUTION Tyler Moselle. the al-Qaeda leaders are still at large." 1-14-09. ethnic groups.harvard. 10-1-09. Washington's strategic aims in Afghanistan appear to be non-existent unless they need the conflict to discipline European allies who betrayed them on Iraq. Harvard University. Once Americans become cynical about such efforts.TOO MANY BARRIERS Tyler Moselle. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. "The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan. a troop surge actually increases the likelihood of causing Americans to become cynical about the prospects of aiding Afghanistan because few results will emerge in a short time span following troop increases.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. not war and occupation. Only Afghans themselves can create a political solution to the problems in their country: the best the US and foreign powers can do is to provide minimal ." HOMELAND SECURITY TODAY. What will be the result of a NATO withdrawal? Here Iran. A Surge is Necessary to Provide Security for a Political Solution Poor assumption. as in Iraq. it is likely citizens will demand a total withdrawal.80 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "POLITICAL SETTLEMENT" 1. Troop surge proponents overlook the fundamental fact that a political compromise is the only sustainable solution for peace in Afghanistan.hks. Afghanistan is but one example.CANNOT BE IMPOSED FROM ABOVE Tariq Ali.oneparadigm. It is much better for regime-change to come from below even if this means a long wait as in South Africa. 2-27-07.hks. Moreover. Kennedy School of Government.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/Moselle_HSToday_20091001. www. It would take roughly 10 years of a heavy occupation force combined with economic and social development to even start to provide a foundation for transforming deeply rooted issues in Afghanistan. "6 Fallacies of a Surge in Afghanistan. Americans are delusional when it comes to nation building. . is a basic one. Indonesia or Chile. Occupations disrupt the possibilities of organic change and create a much bigger mess than existed before. arguably the worst possible unintended consequence of such a policy.pdf.pdf.

oneparadigm. and that the insurgency is a direct threat to American interests. In fact. who are not the same as al-Qaeda. now control 70 percent of Afghanistan -. 2. former Acting Executive Director." MCCLATCHY-TRIBU"NE. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. 1-5-10. accessed 4-8-10. securing the cities. however. seems to have little bearing on U.edu/index. .S. OBAMA STRATEGY OF SECURING THE CITIES WILL NOT PROMOTE COUNTER-TERRORISM Ivan Eland. 12-1-09.S." Afghans fear the Taliban. which is at the heart of the new U. each of these assumptions are false. foreign troop presence in the country near towns and individuals increases the likelihood that the Taliban will target those same people for providing information to the "infidel occupation forces.php?page=article&id=1919. Senior Fellow. that the United States should prop up the Karzai regime.independent. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.com .S. strategy. The attempt to bring about what likely will be only temporary stability in Afghanistan by increasing U. accessed 4-13-10. military and don't appear to be sheltering al-Qaeda training camps in the remote countryside. This counterinsurgency strategy presupposes that the Afghan population needs to be protected. Sounding a bit like John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign. The Independent Institute. foreign militaries. "Obama's Wrong Road in Afghanistan. http://www. "Obama's Afghanistan Troop Surge Misses the Point.S. counterterrorism efforts.THEY ARE A MAGNET FOR VIOLENCE Tyler Moselle. OUR TROOPS CANNOT PROTECT THE AFGHAN POPULATION -. http://hir.harvard. forces there is not a long-term solution.org/newsroom/article. President Barack Obama plans to escalate the war in Afghanistan before de-escalating it. Thus. just as it probably won't provide a lasting solution in Iraq." HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. They seem to have learned a lesson from their 2001 ouster from power by the U.asp?id=2675.81 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "SECURITY/POPULATION PROTECTION" 1.primarily outside the cities. The current debate over troop increases in Afghanistan based on the recent strategic assessment from McChrystal misunderstands the national security threat of bin Laden and Al Qaeda. and predatory Afghan police in nearly equal measure. The administration should have abandoned the feckless nation-building strategy of the Bush years and refocused instead on the main mission: neutralizing al-Qaeda while avoiding instability in nuclear-armed Pakistan. There is no clear evidence that American and NATO forces actually protect the Afghan population from violence. The Taliban.

Endive.for the most part the United States' main adversary. "Seven Reasons: Why Obama Is Wrong on Afghanistan. accessed 4-18-10. U. 2008. It would take 20 successful years to match Pakistan's economy. Will. and then retreat to the sanctuary. WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEFEAT THE TALIBAN -.S." 4-6-09. senior fellow and Director. Engaging the Taliban -. Afghanistan is also a harder nut to crack than Iraq for other reasons. www." Clear? Taliban forces can evaporate and then return. accessed 4-8-10. THE OCCUPATION IS DOOMED TO FAILURE -. Counterinsurgency doctrine teaches.and " 'our' Afghans may prove no more viable than were 'our' Vietnamese.in diplomacy is far more promising than continuing the war. Center on Peace & Liberty. are northeastern or northwestern India. A SURGE SIMPLY CANNOT ELIMINATE THE TALIBAN Rory Stewart. Three-quarters of Afghanistan's poppy production for opium comes from Helmand. loudly. The U.NEED A DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION PACIFIC FREE PRESS.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. "The Good War Isn't Worth Fighting.S. All this is unpleasant for Western politicians who dream of solving the fundamental problems and getting out.S."control" is an elastic concept -. perhaps? 2. Yes. To succeed. the untamed Pakistani tribal areas provide a sanctuary for the Taliban so that fighters from the group can cross into Afghanistan. the Taliban is resurgent and yes.not the Taliban. a long-time ally of the group despite billions in U. Afghanistan's rough terrain has sheltered many guerrilla movements over the years. strategy is "clear. former British Foreign Service Officer.particularly the more moderate elements -.edu/cchrp/pdf/RoryStewart/TheGoodWarIsn%27tWorthFighting. Military historian Max Hastings says Kabul controls only about a third of the country -. Hence nation-building would be impossible even if we knew how.independent. confident that U. the Saigon regime.S.82 MILITARY SOLUTION FAILS: ANSWERS TO: "TALIBAN DEFEATABLE" 1. It is important to understand that the Taliban is indigenous and we are not. despite that nation's great economic and political successes.asp?id=2350. hold and build. The Taliban and other Islamist fighters also have better sanctuaries within Afghanistan than within Iraq. 11-23-08. that development depends on security. not very helpfully. "Time for the U. "Will Transplanting the Strategy in Iraq to Afghanistan Save the Day?" The Independent Institute.S. government or judiciary -. although the guerrillas do get some cover by blending into urban areas.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083102912. to Get Out of Afghanistan. its imposition of fundamentalist Islamic law is inhumane but recall that the Taliban was allowed to seize power with our blessings before this war precisely for the reason cited above: regional stability. attack. Nor. www.com . They will soon be tempted to give up.pdf. accessed 3-4-10.and Pakistan is still not stable. A sudden surge of foreign troops and cash will be unhelpful and unsustainable. 3. accessed 4-8-10. U. ." NEW YORK TIMES. We will not be able to eliminate the Taliban from the rural areas of Afghanistan's south.com/news/1/3985-seven-reasons-why-obama-is-wrong-on-afghanistan. In contrast. so we will have to work with Afghans to contain the insurgency instead. air strikes and occasional incursions on the ground into Pakistan to target these Taliban sanctuaries have been limited because of their unpopularity with the Pakistani population.000 Marines are contesting control of Helmand province. The New York Times reports a Helmand official saying he has only "police officers who steal and a small group of Afghan soldiers who say they are here for 'vacation. One of the most encouraging developments in President Obama's statements on the Afghan War is that when he speaks of the enemy he speaks of Al Qaeda -. pressured Sunni neighbors of Iraq to cut off the provision of support and sanctuary for Iraq's Sunni insurgents -.hks. DOOMS CURRENT POLICY Ivan Eland. In Afghanistan.HAVE ACCESS TO TOO MANY SANCTUARIES. 9-1-09.S. the U. officials are urging farmers to grow other crops.S.html.org/newsroom/article. educational levels. Furthermore.washingtonpost. which puts pressure on the Pakistani government to protest to the U. and that security depends on development. guerrillas need a sanctuary and outside material and financial support.WE CANNOT CLEAR OUT THE TALIBAN George F. www.harvard." WASHINGTON POST. which is the size of West Virginia. In what should be called Operation Sisyphus.html.' " Afghanistan's $23 billion gross domestic product is the size of Boise's. Iraq is fairly flat. Radical Islam cannot be defeated by military means.pacificfreepress. WE CANNOT DEFEAT THE TALIBAN MILITARILY -. for that matter.S. 4.oneparadigm. and even if Afghanistan were not the second-worst place to try: The Brookings Institution ranks Somalia as the only nation with a weaker state. assistance slathered on the Pakistani government. the now well-equipped Taliban is likely being supported by the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI). October 20. www. Although the Iranians were providing some support to the Shi'a militias in Iraq. forces will forever be too few to hold gains." Just 4.

The Taliban should have learned its lesson that harboring Al Qaeda will bring the U. Now.foreignpolicy. security bureaucracies can convince him to stay longer.org/events/transcript. we'd let the U. accessed 4-18-10. situation with an enhanced military presence but rather should pragmatically maintain a light footprint to prevent Afghanistan from lapsing into civil war and being used as a terrorist sanctuary. Imagine that the situation in Afghanistan were exactly what it is today -." FOREIGN POLICY. accessed 4-8-10. and difficult decision about whether or not to increase the numbers of troops to the region . Harvard. which elements of the Pakistani military use to counter the Indian influence in Afghanistan.except that the U. Instead.a "surge" like the one employed with limited success in Iraq under General Petraeus. and that's Pakistan's major enemy. you can't restructure Pakistan's security priorities. but Pakistan has its own incentives to fight the Pakistani Taliban. WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS TO KEEP THE TALIBAN FROM HARBORING AL QAEDA Ivan Eland.independent. http://walt.harvard.S.a corrupt government in Kabul with dubious legitimacy. as for Afghanistan. THE BEST WAY TO STABILIZE AFGHANISTAN IS TO WITHDRAW MOST OF OUR FORCES Tyler Moselle. THE U. We could use the threat of periodic air strikes.asp?eventID=145. Now. 2.pdf. Fighting terrorism I would say maybe even in their own country is secondary to Pakistan.S. -.asp?eventID=145. It is certainly secondary in the mind of the Pakistani military. Professor.N.org/events/transcript. We'd express our concern. What do we do? Well. accessed 4-9-10. I think that the U.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/Moselle_HSToday_20091001. an insurgency that aims to overthrow the Pakistani government but not the Afghanistan Taliban. accessed 4-18-10.oneparadigm. something that any Taliban government would like to avoid if they're trying to govern the country because they do hold territory and we can hold them accountable. But I doubt we would be having a serious debate about sending a large number of troops to Afghanistan if we weren't there already. The US government and Western allies should not radically alter the nature of the current. SHOULD SIMPLY WITHDRAW FROM AFGHANISTAN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE Ivan Eland. 3.hks. Yet for right now I think they've lost the internal battle. delicate. do its best. especially on the part of the White House staff and the vice president. 4. needs to realize that Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. www.000 or so American soldiers to fight and die there? My views on this subject are clear.S. International Relations. I would rely on the Afghan Taliban's chief support of the Pakistani military to make sure that they don't harbor Al Qaeda.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVES STABILITY: AFGHANISTAN www. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. then we leave it alone. we'd go after them with special forces and Predators or other military assets.S.83 1. but the question remains whether the U. You have to accept the eventual reality that the Taliban will help govern or govern Afghanistan. "Can the U.S. The administration is facing an incredibly complex. "Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan.independent. and now that the violence in Iraq has lessened. I would try to buy off what Taliban you can as a way to minimize casualties and lower violence so that we can get out.S. the effort to stabilize the nation is at a critical stage. the Taliban gaining strength. Eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan. we forgot about Afghanistan while we were doing all of this stuff in Iraq. 10-7-09.S. we still have options. there is some vague awareness of that in this administration. .com . THERE WOULD BE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR U. escalation in Afghanistan was needed to convince the Pakistani government to fight the Taliban. "Can the U. Senior Fellow. we would be treating Afghanistan the same way we treat most failed states. offer modest amounts of humanitarian assistance. The United States must withdraw the bulk of its troops from Afghanistan by June 2010 and leave a light force in the country thereafter. Obama seems to have been persuaded that the U. Walt. "Another Afghan Counterfactual. our short attention span is back to Afghanistan. and I know most people are interested in Afghanistan because it's the war of the weak. Of course. should also get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.S. forces get involved." HOMELAND SECURITY TODAY. and if we thought al Qaeda was operating there. 10-1-09. al Qaeda's leaders still hiding out in northwest Pakistan. 12-9-09. www. And then ask yourself: would you be in favor of sending 100. so feel free to discount what follows. Senior Fellow.S. I think that the U. etc. India is a nuclear-armed power. 12-9-09. If the Taliban plays ball with us and doesn't harbor Al Qaeda. It seems as if Obama in this speech is giving it one last college try before the withdrawal begins. http://www. We could invade again although this time we wouldn't remain. Now. TROOPS IF WE WERE NOT ALREADY OCCUPYING THE COUNTRY Stephen M. hammer down. military wasn't there.S.com/posts/2009/10/07/another_afghan_counterfactual.S. Just look at how we are currently dealing with Somalia or Yemen or Sudan and you get an idea of how we would be dealing with Afghanistan if were we not there already. Of course. They always seem to make arguments that he can't refuse to stay longer when U.

10-17-09." ASIA TIMES.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.WILL DENY TARGETS TO THE INSURGENT Gareth Porter. . accessed 4-18-09. Davis writes. SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE COUNTRYSIDE -.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ17Df03. www. The strategy would also provide support for improved Afghan governance and training for security forces. Davis argues that a large and growing US military presence would make it more difficult to achieve this counterterrorism objective.html. It would leave US Special Forces and their supporting units. "Going 'Deep'. The "Go Deep" strategy proposed by Davis would establish an 18-month time frame during which the bulk of US and NATO combat forces would be withdrawn from the country. By withdrawing conventional forces from the countryside. The "Go Deep" strategy outlined in the paper appears to parallel the shift in strategy from counterinsurgency to counterterrorism being proposed by some officials in discussions in the White House in recent weeks.atimes. The forces that continue to operate in insurgent-dominated areas would wage "an aggressive counterterrorism effort" aimed in part at identifying Taliban and al-Qaeda operatives.com . Typically insurgents attack US positions not for any tactical military objective. he suggests. but to gain a propaganda victory. and enough conventional forces in Kabul to train Afghan troops and police and provide protection for US personnel.84 WITHDRAWAL SOLVES STABILITY: AFGHANISTAN cont'd 5. Not 'Big'. in Afghanistan.oneparadigm. US strategy would deprive the insurgents of "easily identifiable and lucrative targets against which to launch attacks".

WITHDRAWAL WILL STABILIZE AFGHANISTAN. The wrong people can be killed.timesonline. We need a much lighter military footprint. And such attacks require detailed knowledge of the movements of the targets. www. After eight years in Afghanistan. it is an extravagant distraction from more important strategic priorities. such as Mullah Omar. military forces in Somalia killed Saleh Nabhan. Yet the case for withdrawing from Afghanistan makes tactical. accessed 4-8-10. Harvard University. will play some role. We should plan now to reduce the size of our military commitment and decide what we can do with fewer troops. would provide more effective help without troops in Afghanistan. We should plan now to reduce the size of our military commitment and decide what we can do with fewer troops." If there is a "right" mission in Afghanistan.oneparadigm. In September. Harvard University. Withdrawal of U. Even a few thousand international troops and US air support would be a serious deterrent to civil war. The U.timesonline." TIMES. have killed al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan.and an acceptance that the Taliban. troops (aided by much smaller forces from Britain. in some form. chiefly because legitimate U. "In Afghanistan today." IN THESE TIMES. for instance. Ryan Professor of Human Rights.S.S. We cannot afford to keep 80.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW WITHDRAWAL SOLVES STABILITY: PAKISTAN www. including Pakistan and as long as we are seen as an occupying power. accessed 4-18-10. US and European voters won't support it.S. This does not mean abandoning Afghanistan entirely. U. Germany. there will be Afghans who want to fight us. This does not mean abandoning Afghanistan entirely. 3-17-09. the leader of the Taliban government shattered by U.com/article/5006/get_out_now/. But most importantly we must continue to provide generous long-term financial support to the Afghan Government and its military.S.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5920064. "What Worked in Iraq Won't Help Afghanistan.and increased stability as a consequence of peaceful co-existence with the Taliban -would benefit Pakistan.inthesetimes. A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT WILL ALLOW US TO PREVENT A CIVIL WAR AND FOCUS ON PAKISTAN Rory Stewart.S. might be worth negotiating with instead of killing. As Bacevich has written. Italy and other "allied" countries) haven't accomplished this. if not a decisive role. www. An end to war in Afghanistan -. Ryan Professor of Human Rights. even secular elites blame Americans for inflaming and exaggerating their domestic problems. The US and its allies should use special forces and intelligence operatives to ensure that al-Qaeda never again finds Afghanistan a safe and comfortable environment in which to establish training camps. Embassy in Kenya and Tanzania. Predator drones.000 foreign troops in Afghanistan for a decade." TIMES. Omar remains head of the insurgency. highlighting an alternative to ground troops and an Afghan quagmire.ece. strategic and moral sense.S. it can only be to deny al-Qaeda and its friends the opportunity to attack Americans at home and abroad. Some of the declared "enemies.000 foreign troops in Afghanistan for a decade. . "What Worked in Iraq Won't Help Afghanistan.ece. 10-9-09. But most importantly we must continue to provide generous long-term financial support to the Afghan Government and its military. PROVIDING REAL BENEFITS TO PAKISTAN G. US and European voters won't support it. Anti-American feeling is extraordinarily high in Pakistan.S. which possesses nuclear weapons. "robot" aircraft controlled from a distance by U. the United States and its allies are using the wrong means to vigorously pursue the wrong mission. technicians.S. A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT WILL ALLOW US TO PREVENT A CIVIL WAR AND FOCUS ON PAKISTAN Rory Stewart. Secular political forces in Pakistan. Canada." meanwhile. which is currently debating how much to increase financial assistance to Pakistan. The US and its allies should use special forces and intelligence operatives to ensure that al-Qaeda never again finds Afghanistan a safe and comfortable environment in which to establish training camps. it is an extravagant distraction from more important strategic priorities. air strikes beginning on Oct. www. The use of assassination squads and remote-controlled killer planes present their own practical and moral problems. the man believed to be responsible for attacks on the U. government. We need a much lighter military footprint. 2001. Pascal Zachary. We cannot afford to keep 80.com . Yet targeted attacks by U. accessed 4-8-10. are battling to keep the country out of the hands of religious fundamentalists who already exert profound influence. 3. troops would be linked to progress in peace negotiation -. in a new Afghan government. where Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants are believed to be living in a remote city.S. 2. 7.85 1.co.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5920064. U. security needs can be achieved more effectively through other means. 3-17-09. a popular hero and important to any negotiated settlement in Afghanistan. including Pakistan and as long as we are seen as an occupying power. there will be Afghans who want to fight us. and allied forces are killing terrorists. Even a few thousand international troops and US air support would be a serious deterrent to civil war. "Get Out Now.

S." Al Qaeda is not an existential threat to the United States. but surely the president can appease them in alternative. In short. some are stridently opposed. In explaining his plan. as well as in Afghanistan. Spain. September 14.if such an organization may be said to exist as anything more than a sprawling. Its capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Such terrorists may spring. Alarmism increases the group's credibility while diverting finite economic and military resources away from increased domestic security." If these statements express the president's actual thoughts. loosely articulated collection of hyper-zealous. less politically risky ways. intelligence official told ABCNews.S. . "Troop Surge in Afghanistan a Losing Investment. December 4. and they have grown more infrequent.cato. A senior U.com . troops to Afghanistan during the next six months does not make sense. THERE ARE ONLY 100 AL QAEDA FIGHTERS IN AFGHANISTAN ABC NEWS. President Barack Obama's description Tuesday of the al Qaeda "cancer" in that country left out one key fact: U. accessed 4-8-10.S. Al-Qaida -. . a national predisposition to overreact to terrorism can make the United States a more appealing terrorist target. lethal. intelligence officials have concluded there are only about 100 al Qaeda fighters in the entire country.independent. The military chiefs apparently support the plan.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861.S. 2009. and other Middle Eastern venues. As he justified sending 30. Finally. They have emerged in Indonesia.000 U. Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University argues. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are lukewarm. opponents in Afghanistan is a low-yield investment. for the most part.org/pub_display. The relatively small number was part of the intelligence passed on to the White House as President Obama conducted his deliberations.does not need Afghanistan to plan and mount attacks against the United States and U. disjointed and miserable opponents that they are. subduing U." CATO WHITE PAPER. foreign policy analysts. anti-American Muslims -. . and leading a terrorist operation . as John Mueller. Even if U. Turkey. It is increasingly unlikely that the group could mount another attack on the scale of 9/11. In fact." Carle argued in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post.asp?id=2674. President Obama's decision to send another 30. And. .'VICTORY' IN AFGHANISTAN WILL NOT DEFEAT THEM Robert Higgs. "has only a handful of individuals capable of planning. accessed 3-5-10. from many places. Though the United States should continue to monitor al Qaeda carefully and carry out operations against it as opportunities arise. Pakistan.S. and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. The Independent Institute.php?pub_id=10533. as they have sprung. and Germany. a 23-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who served as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats. All of al Qaeda's attacks since 9/11 have been more modest. the president declares that "we must deny al-Qaida a safe haven. www. then he is much less astute than he is usually given credit for. at best. Hardly anybody has real enthusiasm for the plan.000 more troops to Afghanistan at a cost of $30 billion a year. "President Obama's Secret: Only 100 al Qaeda Now in Afghanistan. AFGHANISTAN IS NOT A NECESSARY BASE FOR AL QAEDA -. it is important to recognize that people in Washington tend to exaggerate the specter of the al Qaeda threat." SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER. .86 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN NOT A THREAT 1. 2009.org/newsroom/article. http://www.com the approximate estimate of 100 al Qaeda members left in Afghanistan reflects the conclusion of American intelligence agencies and the Defense Department.S. AL QAEDA IS NOT A THREAT -. "We must see jihadists for the small. senior fellow. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum . Washington's continued fixation on the group presents a bigger threat to genuine American interests than the group itself can pose.THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE PURE EXAGGERATION Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. accessed 3-4-10." 12-2-09. Saudi Arabia.go. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government" because "it is from here that we were attacked on 9/11. 2. "Al Qaeda.oneparadigm. allies.the security of Americans in America would not be appreciably enhanced. 3. organizing." says Glenn Carle. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. forces held Afghanistan in an iron grip -. it does not merit the strategic obsession that it currently receives. much less anything larger.an unachievable condition -. http://abcnews.

he has even said.again.asp?eventID=145. are they local threats or global threats? As long as they are local threats. President. I don't think we can win.independent. and believe me I would love to be able to say that we got Osama Bin Laden. There may be a certain amount of anti-Western.asp?eventID=145. seven. not necessarily that they want to come after the United States in the U. accessed 4-18-10. Why? Because there will always be people who have sympathies and decide they want to support groups like Al Qaeda.fff. We've got to stop treating them monolithically as a single threat as if somehow they are a threat to the United States of America proper. Here are the issues. accessed 4-18-10.S. Bin Laden and the people surrounding him no longer represent operationally the real threat to the United States. then those are threats that the Afghan government has to deal with and ones that we may have to live with -. And by the way I saw a news report that supposedly even Bin Laden -. but if you're going to run effective counterinsurgency.com .org/events/transcript.independent. You better be willing to be there for a long time.S. whether they're operating out of Pakistan or coming across the boarder periodically into Afghanistan. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute.finds his way across the border into Afghanistan periodically. which is what creates terrorists. It's the global threat that Al Qaeda may represent that we have to worry about. military will no longer be dropping bombs on Afghan wedding parties and others. This is already an unpopular war with the American public. relatively small footprint.S. but occupation is what fuels resentment. OCCUPATION IS THE PRIMARY RECRUITING TOOL Charles Pena. The reason that the ranks of the terrorists are larger than they were seven years ago is because the U.asp. and I also think that we have to be willing to concede at this point that what's left of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda -. While it's true that the terrorists could still come to the United States and conduct terrorist attacks after a U. www. Senior Fellow. both Peter and Ivan have talked about this. There are elements of the Taliban that would support Al Qaeda in wanting to attack the United States. Iraq and Afghanistan. let's ramp up. especially all those people in the wedding parties that have been bombed. military has killed lots of people who had nothing to do with the terrorists. www.assuming he's still alive -. how long do we have to stay? We've already been in there eight years. and Bin Laden in particular does not have operational control over a group that has global reach that can attack the United States. Those are three strong tactical reasons to withdraw. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. www. The question is.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-09.S. Most importantly. Our larger problem is the ideology of radical Islam. OUR PRESENCE ONLY FUELS RESENTMENT AND RECRUITS TERRORISTS Charles Pena.S. I think we have to worry about that less now than we did eight years ago. I would argue that whatever benefit there might be to getting Bin Laden at this point. "Can the U. I think we have to worry more that we are radicalizing Muslims around the world. that attacked us on 9/11. It creates terrorists in the territory that you're occupying. occupation that makes us a target. Our larger problem is not Osama Bin Laden and what is left of Al Qaeda hiding out in Pakistan.S. They're not. is a pie-in-the-sky notion.there will be some safe havens. They're not one and the same. ten. "Immediately Withdraw from Afghanistan Too. Number three. I think. anti-U. The real threat is sort of everywhere within the Muslim world being fueled by ideology and anti-American sentiment. withdrawal. 12-9-09. the U. you better plan to be there for a minimum of five years.org/events/transcript. Third. by the way. 12-9-09.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Number one. oscillating. goes a long. as witnessed by the bombings in Madrid and London in particular. Hornberger. which has seeped into the Muslim world in part because we've helped propagate that by our actions in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. much to his credit. elements in radical Islamic ideology. . That is exactly not what President Obama has proposed. We here in the United States tend to equate the Taliban with Al Qaeda. What are the odds that the American public is going to be willing to put up with five. long way to fueling that radicalism that it's U. That sort of thing tends to make people angry and vengeful. less than perfect. and as we saw with 9/11 it creates terrorists who may decide that they want to strike you at home away from the territory that you're occupying.S. Oh. U. So this notion of denying Al Qaeda safe haven in Afghanistan. 2-9-09. by exiting the country." Future of Freedom Foundation. Al Qaeda isn't the same Al Qaeda that existed. Our very presence in two Muslim countries at the moment. I applaud him for that. going back and forth between counterinsurgency. "Can the U. The history of counterinsurgency is five to seven years with enough troops engaged in the kinds of operations that you really need to engage in.87 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ESCALATION SPURS TERRORISM/RECRUITING 1. There are other elements of the Taliban that are just interested in having a say in the government in Afghanistan. twenty more years of this? From a tactical perspective. that he does not want this to be an open-ended nation-building mission.oneparadigm. the Brits were in Malaysia for 20 years running their counterinsurgency operations there. Senior Fellow. but most of that is because we're there in their territories. as has been suggested. In fact.S. at least the ranks of the terrorists will no longer be continuously swelled by the bombing of Afghan wedding parties and others unconnected to the terrorists. Both Peter and Ivan have talked a little about this. We have to be willing to live with less than perfect in terms of what happens in Afghanistan. counterterrorism. 3. now let's ramp up even more. MILITARY KILLINGS ONLY RECRUIT MORE TERRORISTS Jacob G. which would immediately reduce the incentive for new recruits to join the terrorists. the one that trumps those three is that strategically it's not in our interest to stay. accessed 4-09-10. 2. but strategically the costs required to try and get Bin Laden and contain Al Qaeda far outweigh any residual benefit at this stage. WE DO NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO TAKE THE TIME TO WIN. the Taliban is not monolithic.

This thinking is flawed for several reasons. policymakers should recognize that not everyone willing to resist U. Myth #3: Terrorists Dwell in Ungoverned Parts of the World According to the president. foreign policy analysts. the Haqqani network. since [a U. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan. Germany included]. Only by prolonging our military presence do we allow the Taliban.S. intervention is necessarily an enemy of the United States.S. foreign policy analysts. Contrary to the claims that we should use the U." CATO WHITE PAPER. America's presence has already caused major problems for the government in Islamabad. There are also indications that it has raised tensions in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries. enemies can flourish in strong states because these countries have formally recognized governments with the sovereignty to reject foreign interference in their domestic affairs. open-ended military occupation gives Osama bin Laden and his ilk exactly what they want: America's all-volunteer military force is pressed to cope with two protracted irregular wars. ungoverned states. there's reason to doubt whether state failure or poor governance in itself poses a threat. dismantle. This is one reason why terrorists find sanctuary across the border in Pakistan.is an increasingly potent recruiting tool." . such an extraordinarily costly. America must forcibly stabilize. we are inadvertently killing innocent civilians and our policies are recruiting militants to their cause. WE DO NOT NEED A STABLE STATE TO DEFEAT AL QAEDA -.S. our strategy is to disrupt. Yet in order to accomplish that goal. 5.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. 2009.S. policies emphasizing the use of force tend to create new terrorists. Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan.WE ARE ACTUALLY ONLY SPURRING THEIR RECRUITING EFFORTS Malou Innocent. In this respect.org/pub_display.like the occupation of Iraq -.S. a 2008 study by the RAND Corporation found that U.RAND STUDY PROVES Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter." CATO WHITE PAPER. Most importantly. U. accessed 3-5-10." HUFFINGTON POST. "Myth v.php?pub_id=10509.org/pub_display. military to stabilize the region and reduce the threat of terrorism. the U. 2009. military] presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment. and even Pakistani Taliban militants to reframe the conflict and their position within it as a legitimate defense against a foreign occupation. USE OF FORCE WILL ONLY INCREASE TERROR RECRUITING -. the argument that America's security depends on rebuilding failed states ignores that terrorists can move to governed spaces. including its alignment with U. Second.cato.php?pub_id=10533. Rather than setting up in weak. and democratize Afghanistan. 9-4-09. Why? Beltway orthodoxy tells us that because extremists will emerge in ungoverned parts of the world and attack the United States.com .S. military "should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies. we must understand that not every Islamic fundamentalist is a radical Islamist. http://www.org/pub_display. 6. Third. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e Islami.oneparadigm. Fact: Afghanistan. liberalize.88 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ESCALATION SPURS TERRORISM/RECRUITING cont'd 4. accessed 4-9-10." Seth Jones and Martin Libicki argue that the U. let alone one who is hell-bent on launching a terrorist attack against the American homeland. September 14. policies.cato. and defeat al Qaeda. U. Cato Institute. OCCUPATION FUELS TALIBAN AND TERRORIST RECRUITING EFFORTS Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter. occupation of Afghanistan -. [Note: 9/11 was planned in many other countries.php?pub_id=10533. the Obama administration believes we must create a functioning national state there.cato. http://www. which is deeply unpopular for many reasons. In "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qai'da. http://www.S.S. accessed 3-5-10.S. Foreign Policy analyst. September 14. First. as my Cato colleagues Chris Preble and Justin Logan point out. For Islamic militants throughout the region.

http://www.S.org/news/press/2008/07/29/. drawing from a terrorism database maintained by RAND and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase "war on terrorism. in most instances.oneparadigm.org/news/press/2008/07/29/.HISTORY PROVES THAT MILITARY APPROACHES RARELY WORK RAND. strategy against the terrorist group al Qaida has not been successful in significantly undermining the group's capabilities. the possibility of a political solution is more likely if the group has narrow goals. Asia." researchers concluded. a nonprofit research organization. Policing is especially effective in dealing with terrorists because police have a permanent presence in cities that enables them to efficiently gather information. accessed 4-8-10. accessed 4-8-10. 2001. "In most cases. Military force was effective in only 7 percent of the cases examined. 11. The most common way that terrorist groups end -43 percent -. the Middle East and Africa.com . The second most common way that terrorist groups end -." 7-29-08." 7-29-08. sweeping agenda like al Qaida possesses.was via a transition to the political process." said Seth Jones. according to researchers. In a number of cases. Police and intelligence agencies. should be the tip of the spear against al Qaida in most of the world. Should Rethink 'War on Terrorism' Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida. well-armed and well-organized. In looking at how other terrorist groups have ended. than it was during its prior history and the group's attacks since then have spanned an increasingly broader range of targets in Europe. Current U. according to researchers. "U. military force is too blunt an instrument to be successful against terrorist groups. . Jones said. However. according to a new RAND Corporation study issued today.rand. the study's lead author and a political scientist at RAND.S. rather than the military. CURRENT STRATEGY AGAINST AL QAEDA IS FAILING -. POLICING IS A BETTER WAY TO DEAL WITH TERRORISM -.S. "The United States cannot conduct an effective long-term counterterrorism campaign against al Qaida or other terrorist groups without understanding how terrorist groups end. military force isn't the best instrument. "U. MILITARY FORCE WILL FAIL RAND. Should Rethink 'War on Terrorism' Strategy to Deal with Resurgent Al Qaida.89 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: POLICE STRATEGY SOLVES 1.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www.40 percent -. The comprehensive study analyzes 648 terrorist groups that existed between 1968 and 2006. or because local police and intelligence efforts arrest or kill key members. Terrorist groups achieved victory in only 10 percent of the cases studied. although it can be useful for quelling insurgencies in which the terrorist groups are large. http://www.POLICING IS A BETTER OPTION.was through police and intelligence services either apprehending or killing the key leaders of these groups.rand. rather than a broad." 2. Al Qaida has been involved in more terrorist attacks since Sept. the groups end because they become splintered. the RAND study found that most terrorist groups end either because they join the political process. with members joining other groups or forming new factions.

"How to Exit Afghanistan. accessed 4-18-10. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. Central Asia and the Persian Gulf." YES! MAGAZINE. North Korea.90 1.S.S. Our concern is not whether Iraq and Afghanistan are better places.org/stmts/1014/stmt. common sense tells us and unbiased intelligence confirms that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have increased it exponentially and our withdrawal would do more to minimize the threat than any military action our generals can devise.html. it will require human rights training and a central government by which it can be held accountable. 4. 2. the decision that are in our strategic interest. accessed 4-18-10. accessed 4-6-10. to withdraw to give Muslims in those countries less reason to want to target the United States. THROUGHOUT THE MUSLIM WORLD Campaign for Peace and Democracy. "We Call for the United States to End Its Wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan!" 2009. the United States should withdraw its forces from Iraq. not to reveal it." That is the trouble with a nebulous enemy. WITHDRAWAL IS A FAR BETTER WAY TO DEAL WITH ANY TERROR THREAT PACIFIC FREE PRESS. Syria. Withdraw all Combat Troops. A commitment to withdrawing all combat troops will help deflate the recruitment for these groups. www. the undersigned. How do we do it? We can do it.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: WITHDRAWAL SOLVES www. foreign policy is desperately needed to address the misery and inequity in Afghanistan. because that's what is in our strategic interest. Pakistan and many other countries. Our concern is whether either one of them represents a threat to the United States. let me reiterate. We. WITHDRAWAL IS VITAL TO REVERSING OPPOSITION TO THE U. Whatever the threat.independent. less reason to have sympathy with the ideology of radical Islam. 10-1-09.cpdweb. Lebanon and Palestine came to be targets in the war on terror campaign.asp?eventID=145. Institute for Policy Studies. military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan now is not only right in itself.yesmagazine. It is the stuff of war propaganda to conflate the original enemy with those who share some common trait. In addition to ending military intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is how Iraq. It is time to end this kind of smokescreen politics.S. but it's certainly doable. accessed 4-18-10. WE SHOULD WITHDRAW TO UNDERMINE TERROR RECRUITING Charles Pena. are dedicated to working for this new foreign policy. their intent is to obscure the truth.org/peace-justice/how-to-exit-afghanistan. Further training must be refocused and fall under a common set of guidelines. and those are the kinds of decisions that any president should be making. including oversight under the Leahy Law that suspends training funding for any groups involved in human rights abuses. Iran. If the Afghan National Army is to replace them and contribute to the security of Afghanistan. it is also indispensable as a way to begin countering the bitterness and hostility in Muslim countries that breeds terrorist threats to our own security. COMMITMENT TO WITHDRAW WILL UNDERMINE TERRORIST RECRUITMENT Erik Leaver.shtml.pacificfreepress. That is how wars are expanded without the approval of congress. Foreign troops on the ground (and drone attacks from the air) have been the most important tool for recruiting in terrorist networks.S.org/events/transcript. It must end all support to Arab autocracies and police states and give real support to Palestinian statehood. www. www. A truly democratic U. www. It's a little bit logistically complicated. Those who engage in the practice have tipped their hand.com/news/1/3985-seven-reasons-why-obama-is-wrong-on-afghanistan. "Seven Reasons: Why Obama Is Wrong on Afghanistan. threats that arise from networks that are not limited to any specific geographic location.S. 12-9-09. but we can only begin to do so by diverting our country's vast wealth away from militarism and the drive for "full spectrum dominance" of the world. Senior Fellow. Again. and we would be a much safer country as a result of doing that. 3.oneparadigm. Thank you. The Center declares that AQ and its "affiliates" have regained a strategic safe haven in Pakistan and Afghanistan but of course that may depend on how you define "affiliates. Ending U. Can we withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes.com . That is how the war in Vietnam became the war in Southeast Asia." 4-6-09. . The best way in my opinion to move in the right direction to ensure that neither country is a threat to the United States is for the U. "Can the U. Whatever the AQ threat is it is by no means the pre-eminent threat of our troubled times. More importantly should we withdraw? Absolutely.

al Qaeda will take sanctuary in the country again and continue to launch attacks against the West like the did on 9/11. Those in favor of a greater military presence also argue that once we leave. Statement before the House Foreign Relations Committee." As for al-Qaeda's remnants. Safe Havens in Many Places.php?view=435. Who cares whether a particular regime likes the U.). Hornberger. one could argue in favor of US airstrikes against several US states and Germany! It makes no sense. Yeah. We need to remember that the attack on the United States on September 11. 3. and few recruits are required for even very deadly terrorism. "Getting Out of Afghanistan. Life goes on. it will use it for such purposes as basic training of recruits. North Korea. But the operations most important to future terrorist attacks do not need such a home. government is unsuccessful in effecting regime change in such countries and installing a regime that is friendly to the U. Chair.hks. . said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. can thwart global terrorist plans. But the Taliban could regain control of Afghanistan" the neocons cry. wrote in the Washington Post: "When a group has a haven.S. Nevertheless. Gen. Likewise." Future of Freedom Foundation.dissentmagazine.S. even when the U. www. government. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents.presumably many of them are already there -. government? 4. according to the 9/11 Commission Report.com .com/article.S. in the insurgency against the Soviet occupation.S. HAS ONLY A VERY SMALL PRESENCE THERE Ron Paul. in turn. ARE PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES FOR AL QAEDA TO USE AS "SAFEHAVENS" Tyler Moselle. al Qaeda and global terrorists will inevitably then find safe-haven in Sudan.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-09. AL QAEDA DOES NOT NEED AFGHANISTAN AS A BASE. this is not a convincing argument. to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. 10-1-09.harvard. Should we send troop surges to all of these countries just to thwart the possibility of an Islamist cell from attacking the West? That is not a sustainable strategy.org/online.S.edu/cchrp/sbhrap/news/Moselle_HSToday_20091001. rather. Somalia. whose government is friendly to the U. But that's empire talk. 2001 was. And don't forget: the U. attacks took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but. some of which are brutal and tyrannical.S. didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. http://www. And if this is a concern.pdf. Territory is not a prerequisite for their operations. government or not? All over the world. they can regather in Pakistan -. Are we to believe that 30.000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan. www. Pakistan. I do not see how that contributes to our national security. government.fff. Iran.php?id=305. and numerous other countries around the world. TERRITORY IS IRRELEVANT TO AL QAEDA Todd Gitlin.91 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ANSWERS TO: "SAFEHAVEN" 1. "Immediately Withdraw from Afghanistan Too. The Taliban allowed al-Qaeda to remain in Afghanistan because both had been engaged. The reality is that most experts agree that a small number of troops in the region.asp. producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. the president's National Security Advisor. there are regimes that hate the U. James Jones. 2-9-09.S. Representative. "But the Taliban could give sanctuary to the terrorists" the neocons cry. we are told that we have to "win" in Afghanistan so that al-Qaeda cannot use Afghan territory to plan further attacks against the US. U. government never provided even a scintilla of evidence showing complicity between the Taliban government and al Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks. Columbia University. LOTS OF OTHER STATES CAN PROVIDE SAFEHAVENS FOR TERRORISTS Jacob G.S. along with increased Special Forces and intelligence operatives deployed to Afghanistan. Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Communication.S.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. with US assistance.campaignforliberty. are hated by the U. less expensive ways to safeguard them. USMC (Ret. Is the goal then to crush the 200 to 500 remnants of al-Qaeda? If so. in apartments in Germany. Paul Pillar. President.oneparadigm. and that. there are other. if they like. Al-Qaeda is a stateless network. accessed 4-9-10. Consider: The preparations most important to the Sept. Venezuela. Just because Afghanistan borders Pakistan does not mean that al-Qaeda is on the way to acquiring Pakistan's nuclear weapons. in Somalia. 10-13-09. accessed 4-09-10. largely planned in the United States (and Germany) by terrorists who were in our country legally.or." HOMELAND SECURITY TODAY. In fact. According to the logic of those who endorse military action against Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was physically present." DISSENT. PhD Program. government. 11. Yemen. former deputy chief of the CIA counterterrorist center. less destructive. 2. accessed 4-8-10. "Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan. http://www. Moreover. government. and so could every other country whose government hates the U. 2001. accessed 4-8-10. 12-10-09. Cuba. hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 92

TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ANSWERS TO: "SAFEHAVEN" cont'd
5. "SAFEHAVEN" CLAIMS ALONE DO NOT JUSTIFY AN ONGOING WAR -- ARE MANY, MANY PLACES WHERE AL QAEDA COULD BASE ITS OPERATIONS Dr. Stephen Biddle, Senior Fellow for Defense Policy, Council on Foreign Relations, Testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 9-16-09, http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2009/BiddleTestimony090916p.pdf, accessed 4-8-10. The first interest is the most discussed -- and the weakest argument for waging war. The United States invaded Afghanistan in the first place to destroy the al Qaeda safe haven there, and Afghanistan's role in the 9-11 attacks clearly justified this. But al Qaeda central is no longer based in Afghanistan, nor has it been since early 2002. Bin Laden and his core operation are, by all accounts, now based across the border in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The Taliban movement in Afghanistan is clearly linked with al Qaeda and sympathetic to it, but there is little evidence of al Qaeda infrastructure within Afghanistan today that could threaten the U.S. homeland in any direct way. If today's Afghan government collapsed, if it were replaced with a neo-Taliban regime, or if the Taliban were able to secure real political control over some major contiguous fraction of Afghan territory then perhaps al Qaeda could re-establish a real haven there. But this risk is shared with a wide range of other weak states in many parts of the world, from Yemen to Somalia to Djibouti to Eritrea to Sudan to the Philippines or even parts of Latin America or central, west, or North Africa, among other possibilities. And of course Iraq and Pakistan fit the description of weak states whose failure could provide havens for al Qaeda. Many of these -- and especially Iraq and Pakistan -- offer bin Laden prospects superior in important ways to Afghanistan's. Iraq and Pakistan, for example, are richer and far better connected to the outside world than is primitive, land-locked Afghanistan with its minimal communications and transportation systems. Iraq is an Arab state in the very heart of the Middle East. Pakistan, of course, is a nuclear power. Afghanistan does enjoy a historical connection with al Qaeda, familiarity to bin Laden, and proximity to his current base in the FATA, and it is important to deny al Qaeda sanctuary on the Afghan side of the Durand Line. But its intrinsic importance is no greater than many other potential havens -- and probably smaller than many. We clearly cannot afford to wage protracted warfare with multiple brigades of American ground forces simply to deny al Qaeda potential safe havens; we would run out of brigades long before bin Laden ran out of prospective sanctuaries. 6. AL QAEDA DOES NOT NEED AFGHANISTAN TO ATTACK THE U.S. -- NO REASON FOR THE SURGE Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow, Political Economy, Independent Institute, "Troop Surge in Afghanistan a Losing Investment," SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, 12-4-09, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2674, accessed 4-13-10. President Obama's decision to send another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan during the next six months does not make sense. Hardly anybody has real enthusiasm for the plan. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress are lukewarm, for the most part; some are stridently opposed. The military chiefs apparently support the plan, but surely the president can appease them in alternative, less politically risky ways. In explaining his plan, the president declares that "we must deny al-Qaida a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum . . . And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government" because "it is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted." If these statements express the president's actual thoughts, then he is much less astute than he is usually given credit for. Al-Qaida -- if such an organization may be said to exist as anything more than a sprawling, loosely articulated collection of hyper-zealous, anti-American Muslims -- does not need Afghanistan to plan and mount attacks against the United States and U.S. allies. Such terrorists may spring, as they have sprung, from many places. They have emerged in Indonesia, Turkey, Spain, and Germany, as well as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern venues. Even if U.S. forces held Afghanistan in an iron grip -- an unachievable condition -- the security of Americans in America would not be appreciably enhanced. In short, subduing U.S. opponents in Afghanistan is a low-yield investment, at best.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 93

TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ANSWERS TO: "TALIBAN SUPPORT AL QAEDA"
1. THE OCCUPATION DOES NOT PREVENT TERRORISTS FROM STRIKING THE HOMELAND Jacob G. Hornberger, President, "Immediately Withdraw from Afghanistan Too," Future of Freedom Foundation, 2-9-09, www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-09.asp, accessed 4-09-10. "But the terrorists will follow us home!" the neocons cry. Let's carefully examine that nonsensical bromide. First, it operates on the assumption that U.S. troops are a magnet and that the terrorists are iron filings. Not so. The terrorists are human beings with the power of exercising choices. If they want to disengage from battles with U.S. troops in Afghanistan and come to the United States to commit terrorist acts, they are fully capable of doing so. The presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan does not prevent the terrorists from making such a choice. 2. U.S. SHOULD WITHDRAW -- THE TALIBAN WILL NOT HARBOR AL QAEDA AGAIN, THEY JUST WANT US TO LEAVE Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute, "Obama's Wrong Road in Afghanistan," MCCLATCHY-TRIBU"NE, 12-1-09, http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2675, accessed 4-13-10. Rather than adding to our current woes, President Obama should have recalled what John Kerry said after he returned from Vietnam as a war hero: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" The bad news is that even under the best of scenarios, the Taliban will never be eradicated from Afghanistan, and likely will become part of the Afghan government. The United States should accept that reality and withdraw its forces from Afghanistan before squandering any more lives and money. Any Taliban-influenced or Taliban-run government will not necessarily shelter al-Qaeda again. People do learn from traumatic experiences -- for example, the Germans and Japanese after World War II -- and the U.S. invasion and ouster of the Taliban should make the group more reluctant to harbor al-Qaeda in the future. This outcome is made easier because the Taliban's primary interest is getting the United States out of Afghanistan and getting itself back into power. In contrast, al-Qaeda's interest is in global jihad, which is being fueled by the U.S. ("infidel") occupation of Afghanistan. 3. TALIBAN WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO REGAIN CONTROL, HAVE OTHER SOURCES OF SAFEHAVENS Robert Jervis, Adlai E. Stevenson Professor of International Affairs, Columbia University, "Withdrawal without Winning?" FOREIGN POLICY, 9-14-09, http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/09/14/withdrawal_without_winning, accessed 4-15-10. The claim that this is a "necessary war" invokes two main claims and one subsidiary one. The strongest argument is that we have to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here. The fact that Bush said this about Iraq does not make it wrong, and as in Iraq, it matters what we mean by "them." Presumably if we withdrew the Taliban would take over much of southern and eastern Afghanistan. This would be terrible for the inhabitants, but would it harm us? I don't think anyone believes that the Taliban would launch attacks against us or our allies, so that the menace is not a direct one. Instead, the fear is of a repetition of the pre-2001 situation in which al Qaeda would have bases that would facilitate attacks. Obviously, this is a danger, but how great a one? The Taliban would not want to repeat what happened after 2001, and so I do not think one can simply assume that Taliban control would automatically lead to al Qaeda control. Nor is Afghanistan the only country that might permit an al Qaeda presence. Somalia is perhaps as troublesome, and yet no one calls for the U.S. to re-intervene there. Furthermore, al Qaeda has some sort of base of operations in Pakistan now (and is not likely to lose it even in the best outcome across the border); how much worse would it be if we withdrew? 4. TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA ARE NOT THE SAME, SHOULD NOT CONFLATE THE TWO Ted Galen Carpenter, Vice President, Defense and Foreign Policy Studies, Cato Institute, "Should the United States Withdraw from Afghanistan?" CATO POLICY REPORT, November/December 2009, www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v31n6/cpr31n6-3.html, accessed 4-9-10. Finally, we do not need to crush the Taliban to achieve our legitimate objectives regarding al Qaeda. It has been a big mistake of U.S. policymakers to conflate al Qaeda and the Taliban. The former is a foreign terrorist organization with the United States in its crosshairs. The latter is an admittedly repulsive political faction, but it represents a parochial insurgency and, in some ways, Pashtun solidarity, which is something to which we'd better pay attention. It is not a direct security threat to the United States. What has happened over the years is that we have drifted into a war against the Taliban, not primarily against al Qaeda. Indeed, on September 11 General McChrystal made an admission that I found almost as startling as the admission about drug revenues in the report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He said that there really is no evidence of a significant al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. My response to that was: well, if al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan, why on Earth are we in Afghanistan? We went there to defeat al Qaeda. If this isn't the arena for al Qaeda anymore, then our mission seems to have no rational purpose whatsoever.

Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011

AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW

www.oneparadigm.com - 94

TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ANSWERS TO: "TALIBAN SUPPORT AL QAEDA" cont'd
5. MULLAH OMAR ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY OPPOSED LETTING BIN LADEN CONDUCT ATTACKS AGAINST THE U.S. Gareth Porter, "Taliban Regime Pressed bin Laden on Anti-U.S. Terror," IPS, 2-11-10, http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50300, accessed 4-8-10. Evidence now available from various sources, including recently declassified U.S. State Department documents, shows that the Taliban regime led by Mullah Mohammad Omar imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States. The evidence contradicts the claims by top officials of the Barack Obama administration that Mullah Omar was complicit in Osama bin Laden's involvement in the al Qaeda plot to carry out the terrorist attacks in the United States on Sep. 11, 2001. It also bolsters the credibility of Taliban statements in recent months asserting that it has no interest in al Qaeda's global jihadist aims. A primary source on the relationship between bin Laden and Mullah Omar before 9/11 is a detailed personal account provided by Egyptian jihadist Abu'l Walid al-Masri published on Arabic-language jihadist websites in 1997. Al-Masri had a unique knowledge of the subject, because he worked closely with both bin Laden and the Taliban during the period. He was a member of bin Laden's Arab entourage in Afghanistan, but became much more sympathetic to the Afghan cause than bin Laden and other al Qaeda officials from 1998 through 2001. The first published English-language report on al-Masri's account, however, was an article in the January issue of the CTC Sentinal, the journal of the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point, by Vahid Brown, a fellow at the CTC. Mullah Omar's willingness to allow bin Laden to remain in Afghanistan was conditioned from the beginning, according to al-Masri's account, on two prohibitions on his activities: bin Laden was forbidden to talk to the media without the consent of the Taliban regime or to make plans to attack U.S. targets. 6. TALIBAN WOULD LIKELY NOT EVEN WORK WITH AL QAEDA Malou Innocent and Ted Galen Carpenter, foreign policy analysts, Cato Institute"Escaping the 'Graveyard of Empires': A Strategy to Exit Afghanistan," CATO WHITE PAPER, September 14, 2009, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10533, accessed 3-5-10. Even if the Taliban were to reassert themselves amid a scaled down U.S. presence, it is not clear that the Taliban would again host al Qaeda. In The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Lawrence Wright, staff writer for New Yorker magazine, found that before 9/11 the Taliban was divided over whether to shelter Osama bin Laden. The terrorist financier wanted to attack Saudi Arabia's royal family, which, according to Wright, would have defied a pledge Taliban leader Mullah Omar made to Prince Turki al-Faisal, chief of Saudi intelligence (1977-2001), to keep bin Laden under control. The Taliban's reluctance to host al Qaeda's leader means it is not a foregone conclusion that the same group would provide shelter to the same organization whose protection led to their overthrow. America's claim that the Taliban is its enemy, and its preoccupation with the group's admittedly reprehensible practices, seems less than coherent. After all, although some U.S. officials issued toothless and perfunctory condemnations of the Taliban when it controlled most of Afghanistan from September 1996 through October 2001, during that time the United States never once made a substantive policy shift toward or against the Taliban despite knowing that it imposed a misogynistic, oppressive, and militant Islamic regime onto Afghans. For Washington to now pursue an uncompromising hostility toward the Taliban's eye-for-an-eye brand of justice can be interpreted as an opportunistic attempt to cloak U.S. strategic ambitions in moralistic values.

the Al Qaeda central leadership. "Immediately Withdraw from Afghanistan Too.S. Withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq?" The Independent Institute. Now. Britain and our allies have not created a positive stable environment in the Middle East. Now." Future of Freedom Foundation. That's longer than World War II. if they don't do what we can. If Vietnam went to the Communists. Overestimating its importance distracts us from higher priorities.hks. troops there? 3. Bush declared his "war on terrorism" seven years ago. Now. TERRORISM IS NOT NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS MULTIPLE OTHER THREATS Rory Stewart. troops withdraw from Afghanistan and return to the United States at once. one that has no end. accessed 4-18-10.Paradigm Affirmatives 2010-2011 AFGHANISTAN: ACCELERATED WITHDRAW www. Senior Fellow. 12-9-09. America. air strikes and special forces to contain Al Qaeda in any of those potential sanctuaries including Afghanistan and Pakistan if we have to. The financial crisis is a more immediate threat to United States power and to other states.that is. but containing the Taliban instead of just containing Al Qaeda actually makes the problem worse because you have the foreign occupation. No handwringing and no delays. there are more terrorists than ever in Afghanistan. could move to Yemen or Somalia so Afghanistan is not any more important than the other countries as a potential shelter.CAN USE OTHER MEANS TO CONTAIN AL QAEDA IN AFGHANISTAN Ivan Eland. Doing no harm should be the first U. President.harvard.95 TERRORISM EXTENSIONS: ANSWERS TO: "TERROR TURNS (GENERAL)" 1. I think these are similar to some of the arguments that were made during the Vietnam War.edu/cchrp/pdf/RoryStewart/TheGoodWarIsn%27tWorthFighting. WE SHOULD IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW FROM AFGHANISTAN -.the stability that might come from a patient. the administration just made the argument that winning in Afghanistan where the 9/11 attacks emanated from will embolden the Islamic militants and harm U. 11-23-08.asp?eventID=145.after seven years of killing the terrorists! How many terrorists have they killed in Afghanistan since they first invaded the country? How many terrorists did they start with? What percentage have they killed of that total? How many terrorists are left? My hunch is that no one knows the answers to any of these questions. www. creates an unhealthy dynamic with the government of Afghanistan and endangers the one thing it needs -. Terrorism is not the key strategic threat facing the United States. President-elect Obama's emphasis on Afghanistan and his desire to send more troops and money there is misguided. Hornberger. we warned that such a war would prove to be much like the drug war -. they've had seven years to kill the terrorists. We have no clear strategy for dealing with China. 2. "The Good War Isn't Worth Fighting. from the way they're making things sound.S. Permit me to make my proposal for Afghanistan: Get out.S. and I'm afraid we're not doing that. prestige.independent.IT HAS FAILED AS A COUNTER-TERROR POLICY Jacob G. which never really happened. President Obama should issue an immediate order that all U. "Can the U. I think we can continue to use law enforcement intelligence.com . Look. Who can now doubt that we were right? U.asp. www. of course.fff. accessed 4-09-10. ." NEW YORK TIMES. Why else would President Obama be sending a large number of additional U. 2-9-09.S. Finally. long-term relationship with the international community. environmental catastrophe is more dangerous for the world. And even from the perspective of terrorism. I think we need to pressure Pakistan and get them to do what they can. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more lethal.S. Longtime supporters of The Future of Freedom Foundation know that when George W.pdf. all of these bad things would happen. AFGHANISTAN does not matter as much as Barack Obama thinks.oneparadigm. www. objective. former British Foreign Service Officer. officials tell us that the war on terrorism in Afghanistan is just now getting a good start -. limited. In fact. THERE IS NO RISK OF A TERROR DOMINO -.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-09.S. then we need to keep Al Qaeda contained with the least footprint available.org/events/transcript. accessed 4-8-10.