Afghanistan Troop Surge

The administration's announcement of a troop surge of 30,000 US Military personnel in Afghanistan announced 1n 12/2009 appears to have been designed as an attempt to please both the progressive Democrats who argued for a withdraw of the US military from Afghanistan and the Republicans who argued for a larger surge. Predictably, the announced surge please neither group.

The President's justification for the US presence in Afghanistan was primarily to prevent Al-Qaeda from reorganizing and establishing a base from which attacks on the west could be planned. There are two arguments against this objective even of the US's strategy in Afghanistan is successful which are:
1 - Even if the surge is effective, it is likely that Al-Qaeda would move to another failed state such as Somalia, Sudan or perhaps Yemen.
2 - Arguably, the $100 billion plus per year that will be spent in Afghanistan by the US military alone in pursuit of the military operation would provide more security to the west if even a fraction of this military budget was spent on intelligence and surveillance. Recall that most if not all of the terrorist attacks in the west after 9/11 were executed by local cells that were inspired by but not supported by the Al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan. Consequently, if Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was completely eliminated, the attacks in London, Spain and other locations would have still occurred.

In any case, the military effort is designed to fail in that the goal is to build a government from the top down when in fact the strategy should be to build from the bottom up. The US strategy is to build a central government capability including a central military and police force. Afghanistan has never had an effective central government and is a tribal society with power vested in the village elders. To control the entire country and gain the support of those Afghans in the best position to defeat the radical Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the US needs to work at the village level with the Shuras. The majority of Afghans do not support the radical Taliban or Al-Qaeda but they also view the Karzai government as corrupt and a threat and will never support any force that supports the Karzai government.

In support of the above argument, consider the activities of the Central Asia Institute (CAI) founded by Greg Mortenson which has been built about 200 schools in Afghanistan since 1999. Only 1 of these schools has ever been attacked and when this school was attacked, the village elder organized a militia which went after the Taliban who attacked and killed or jailed the Taliban involved in the attack. CAI only builds a school when invited to do so by the village and the village provides general labor used in the construction and security for the school and staff. CAI provides skilled labor used in the construction, materials, teacher training and school supplies.

For significantly less than the $100 billion annual cost, the US could establish relationships with the villages and build institutions at the village level which would benefit the Afghans and stop the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.