...Assessments of troop levels will continue to be what the Defense Department calls "conditions based" and will be flexible and responsive. U.S. presence in Afghanistan has been so effective because we have tailored forces to respond to changing needs. During war, U.S. forces must occasionally be repositioned for contingency missions. Meanwhile, U.S. special-operations forces will ruthlessly continue the hunt for al Qaeda and Taliban holdouts and will be prepared for intelligence and other covert operations throughout the battle area...
Pentagon officials are heartened by NATO's continued willingness to participate in the mission of Operation Enduring Freedom...
The slow transition from combat to stability operations, along with increased multinational presence, is good for Afghanistan and good for America. For decades all over the world -- in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other places -- we have drawn down forces and turned operations over to local authorities when the situation became stable. This transition encourages optimism because it is a strong affirmation of the ability of Afghanistan to stand on its own with a freely elected, democratic government. As the legitimacy of the Karzai government improves, Afghanistan moves from the dark, isolated days of the medieval Taliban into the modern community of nations...
What is occurring in Afghanistan is a template of sorts -- given the caveat that there are major differences in the two situations -- for what Pentagon officials anticipate happening eventually in Iraq. As local Iraqi forces increase in capability -- and with some outside augmentation -- then the U.S. forces will draw down and reposition over time. It must not be a panicked, humiliating retreat, as some defeatists advocate, but a timed, phased, well-considered approach that turns power over to the local people and allows them to take charge of their destiny...
Stabilizing Afghanistan
Bookmarks