Fears Grow That US Could Become Isolated In Afghanistan

[tekisui]

Source: Huffington Post

President Barack Obama is facing warnings that the US risks repeating some of its errors in Iraq as the new administration turns its focus to Afghanistan, where Nato forces are engaged in a conflict which has already lasted longer than the Second World War.

Having received a briefing on his first day in office from General David Petraeus, the top US commander in the region, Mr Obama is preparing to meet his military chiefs to decide on the size and shape of the Afghanistan reinforcements he promised during his election campaign. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, said just before Christmas that up to 30,000 more troops could be sent by summer, nearly doubling the size of the US force in the country. Britain, the next largest contributor in the 41-nation international force, has fewer than 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, which means American dominance of the campaign against the Taliban is set to increase.

"There are fears that this could become a US war rather than a Nato one," said Christopher Langton, senior fellow for conflict at the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. "With other Nato members already planning to scale back, the US could find itself isolated. Rather than being an international operation, it would become another 'coalition of the willing', as in Iraq - though with the crucial difference that the Afghan mission has had a United Nations mandate throughout."

Paul Smyth, head of the operational studies programme at London's Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), pointed out that several Nato countries, including Canada, Germany and France, had significantly increased their troop commitments in percentage terms during 2008. But in the past week the French Defence Minister, Hervé Morin, said considering further reinforcements was "out of the question for now". And Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister of the Netherlands, another important contributor of troops, indicated that it would reduce its force by the end of next year.

Mr Smyth said the international coalition in Afghanistan was wider and more committed than that in Iraq, but in some ways faced a tougher task. Although improved security in Iraq would benefit the Afghan mission, Iraqi insurgents had never had as much of a "safe haven" across the border in Iran as the Taliban enjoyed in the lawless frontier areas of Pakistan. "The scale is entirely different," Mr Smyth said.


more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/fears-grow-that-us-could_n_160815.html

[JeffreyWilliamson]

1. Bush left world affairs in a lovely state, didn't he?

:grr:

[Aloha Spirit]

2. This is troubling, since one way that we are being told justifies our mission in that region is that

we are needed to ensure the effectiveness of the NATO mission and the other participating countries.
McCaskill said this fairly directly... SOS Clinton said it more indirectly last Thursday, and I can see it becoming a "selling point," that is, we are needed to support the international effort.
As long as it's mostly true, that's one thing. But if NATO allies start bailing, well, I assume/hope that's something Obama is dealing with at this very moment.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14135