Coalition and Afghan forces are now turning their attention to Kandahar, which was the Taliban's spiritual homeland.
Gates said the military needed more time to improve political conditions there before starting the offensive.
"I do not believe we are bogged down," Gates said. "I believe we are making some progress. It is slower and harder than we anticipated."
I mentioned why it is important to improve political conditions--to shape the battle space before we wage the main battle.
Although this article about some changes we should consider makes a lot of good points--many of which I've made:
1. Change Coalition Forces rules of engagement. I've mentioned that while I am comfortable with the big picture reason for restraint, I'm concerned they might hinder killing the enemy where necessary.
2. Have Special Forces infiltrate and cement themselves in “known Taliban” controlled villages during Winter. I thought we were carrying out winter offensives already. Perhaps this is a more ambitious approach than what we are already doing. It makes sense.
3. Assemble special operation development units. Sadly, we can't count on the civilian agencies of our government to carry out these duties as they are supposed to. The Army and Marines have to do it themselves.
4. New York Style Zero tolerance areas. Yes, sift areas to scrape away the Taliban from people we need to protect.
5. Replicate the local militia Community Guard Program across Afghanistan. Absolutely. I don't know why local defense forces isn't obviously a good idea.
Finally, I would stress the need to change one of the overriding factors that permeates throughout the military and aid organisations; that is an obsession with imposing Western values on development. I do believe I've mentioned that we must pull Afghanistan forward into the 19th century. This was my point--don't try to build Vermont as a metric of victory.
We need to win this war. And we can win this war. More to the point, we are winning this war even if it is taking more time than some would like.
I just get the impression that too many people in America are looking for excuses to abandon the war and lose.
UPDATE: The Kagans weigh in:
Success in Afghanistan is possible. The policy that President Obama announced in December and firmly reiterated last week is sound. So is the strategy that General Stanley McChrystal devised last summer and has been implementing this year. There have been setbacks and disappointments during this campaign, and adjustments will likely be necessary. These are inescapable in war. Success is not by any means inevitable. Enemies adapt and spoilers spoil. But both panic and despair are premature. The coalition has made significant military progress against the Taliban, and will make more progress as the last surge forces arrive in August. Although military progress is insufficient by itself to resolve the conflict, it is a vital precondition. As the New York Times editors recently noted, “Until the insurgents are genuinely bloodied, they will keep insisting on a full restoration of their repressive power.” General David Petraeus knows how to bloody insurgents—and he also knows how to support and encourage political development and conflict resolution. He takes over the mission with the renewed support of the White House.
Support from the top is not enough, of course. Only the president can lead our nation to victory. Will he? Over the objections of his anti-war base who always assumed that candidate Obama's vocal support for winning the Afghan war was just a lie designed to lull rube Americans into voting for him?
Interesting enough, the authors argue we are doing more killing of the Taliban than the portrayal of the rules of engagement debate implies. If so, that nicely bridges my support for the ROE concept as is (with adjustments and efforts to make sure leaders down the chain of command know what they can do within the ROE) with my worry that we aren't doing enough killing of the enemy.
