Leading article: A blow to a new Afghan strategy

Sunday 04 October 2009 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Afghanistan has witnessed one of its fiercest battles since the fall of the Taliban eight years ago. At the weekend in Nuristan, a province that lies on the eastern border with Pakistan, hundreds of militants attacked a US military base with machine guns and mortars. Eight American troops were killed.

Such heavy casualties could not have come at a more sensitive time. American public opinion now appears to have turned against a continuation of the mission in Afghanistan. It is a similar tale in Britain and much of Europe. And the widespread allegations of vote-rigging on behalf of Hamid Karzai in August's presidential election have left the Kabul government perilously lacking in legitimacy. The pressure on America and Nato to scale down the Afghan mission is growing. Rising military casualties are likely to double it.

There is a bitter irony here for those strategists who want to refocus the military effort in Afghanistan. The US army had already planned to pull troops from isolated and vulnerable bases like the one in Nuristan and send them, instead, to important population centres threatened by the Taliban.

The US commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has long advocated a greater emphasis on protecting Afghan civilians than killing insurgents. This is the very sort of battle that General McChrystal did not want his troops to be fighting.

The general's argument is that, to accomplish this necessary shift, many more troops are needed. This is a plea that was echoed at the weekend by General Sir David Richards, the new head of the British Army.

But will they get them? President Obama is considering his general's request. The US president says he needs to be convinced the strategy is right before he sends more troops to Afghanistan. And other Nato members are unlikely to increase their own commitments without a clear signal of intent from the US.

These are uncertain days for the Afghan mission. General McChrystal has a coherent strategy for stabilising Afghanistan. The problem is that with every perception of a battle lost, like the one in Nuristan, the likelihood of him being given an opportunity to execute it grows ever slimmer.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in