Follow-Up on ASG Report

It was pointed out to me that the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) has come in on the debate over Afghanistan strategy in its latest "Strategic Survey" report. Notably, the IISS seems to align with the findings of the Afghanistan Study Group.

At present, the COIN strategy is too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere.
---------
The strategic debate on how to progress in Afghanistan must be focused on:

First, structuring combat forces in Afghanistan to deter and prevent the reconstitution of an organised terrorist threat from within Afghanistan. This would mean their organised redeployment to the north and the arrangement of a status of forces agreement that would allow their intervention in the south against any reconstitution of al-Qaeda jihadist capacities that could pose an international threat.
---------
Second, orchestrating a more con-federal Afghanistan, where the provinces accept that formal rule and external authority resides in the capital and the capital cedes practical sovereignty on most issues to the provinces. A more balanced power-sharing system would invite a less contested political-security space. However paradoxical it may sound, a balance of weakness between the capital and the provinces may be more conducive to Afghan stability.
---------
Third, the new strategy should accept that the Afghan National Army will itself need to have a con-federal character to it. Local forces with genuine local roots willing and able to provide security could be badged ANA and have a stronger chance of being successful. General Petreus has discussed with President Karzai the creation of uniformed local security forces already. Giving national recognition to them is a way of demonstrating that the central government respects localism and contributes to the respect for regional variations by a distant central authority that is necessary.

Fourth, the US and others will have to further deepen the engagement with Pakistan and convince Islamabad that contact with a wide variety of actors in Afghanistan is necessary to create a more sustainable national order. Managing Indian and Pakistani strategic goals in the country needs to be an important priority. A tripartite dialogue between Afghanistan, India and Pakistan is desirable; not least to diminish risks that enduring conflict could escalate to civil-war proportions. Central Asian states, Russia and Iran will have competing concerns in Afghanistan that will have to be reconciled, but a less ambitious coalition military posture in Afghanistan should be used to make this possible.

Strategic Survey 2010 does not seek to lay out a new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan. It does however argue that for Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests. The challenge of Afghanistan must be viewed and addressed in proportion to the other threats to international security and the other requirements for foreign-policy investment.

The report itself is not available online, it is for sale by IISS (and it's expensive...). But it's interesting to see this mainstream think-tank challenge existing US foreign policy in this open fashion. I wonder if Messieurs Foust, Cohen, or Exum will rebut the IISS statement.

Comments

[Ray]

"However paradoxical it may sound, a balance of weakness between the capital and the provinces may be more conducive to Afghan stability."
My thoughts- which thankfully won't make any difference- are that if this suggestion can be assessed and maintained it'll be a major military and political first. It would take an omniscient leader to see it, time it and achieve it.

Also, how does stability arise out of a deliberate
plan to weaken a country so that its peoples are uninspired to do better. It's all very well at the desk stage, but can it be translated to the streets. Sounds like an experimental thing; needing universal and local consensus- almost desperate, and if undertaken (how?) could lead to more complications. If I had to vote on it I'd say no- It's an impossible concept.
We never (or hardly) get any practical suggestions- some of the workable details in these papers.