This article implies that we have decided to stop fighting the war and trying to win:
America must allow U.S. combat forces, now largely restricted to defensive actions, to take the offensive, rout the enemy from safe havens in Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas, radically reduce the Taliban’s military capability, and then declare victory (which, be it noted, President Obama failed to do in Iraq) and bring our troops home.
I'd add that we need to leave behind Afghan security forces capable of holding those gains and actually defend victory rather than simply "declare" it. But the important part is that statement that our combat forces are "now largely restricted to defensive actions[.]"
My fears aren't going away. This news doesn' help, either:
Afghanistan and the United States have reached a compromise on the controversial issue of night raids on Afghan homes by international forces.The agreement gives Afghan authorities veto power over planned operations and more say in the treatment of detainees.
The most effective tool we have is now under Afghan veto? And if we grab someone we have to give Afghans a say in their treatment as if we are the worry?
US casualty numbers in Afghanistan in February and March still indicate that we have pulled back (you have to adjust the original display for US only in Afghanistan only). In January we lost 26 compared to 24 in January 2011. But in February and March we lost 10 and 18, compared to 18 and 29 in February and March 2010. It's as if our military got orders to halt aggressive actions by the end of January. This pattern of reduced casualties remains consistent with a military largely restricted to defensive actions. I know I belittle the idea that we face a "resurgent" Taliban, but I won't claim we crushed them yet. Not when they remain in the east and across the border in Pakistan.
If we don't try to win the war in Afghanistan, we will lose that war. And it still counts as a loss even if President Obama avoids the blame for the defeat before his re-election bid this November.
Unless we won the war already and nobody announced it, explain why we seem to have stopped trying to win?
UPDATE: OK, the night raids deal is no big deal according to Strategypage:
As a practical matter, American commanders see all this as PR stunt, and NATO commanders will still have control over the raids. This is seen as essential to limiting casualties among foreign troops. Moreover, many of the Afghan army and police commanders agree that the raids are a crucial weapon for fighting the Taliban and drug gangs (who would kill many current Afghan army and police commanders if they took over).
OK. I'm satisfied on that.
But what about the apparent lack of offensive action in the east by American troops?
On the one hand, Strategypage notes what I've said all along--the Taliban are not resurgent:
NATO troops continue to chase down Islamic terrorists. So far this year, nearly 500 have been killed and twice as many captured. The American intelligence system, developed in Iraq, quickly identifies Islamic terrorists, especially the leaders. Using UAVs, electronic monitoring, informants and vast databases that can be quickly searched, the resulting NATO raids quickly capture or kill suspects (usually during night raids). This has resulted in less terrorist violence, as the Islamic radical groups and drug gangs scramble to cope with the constant losses of leaders and other resources.
But the fact that we've hammered the Taliban has never been in doubt for me.
Is this the same as being on the offensive in Regional Command East as our plan has assumed all along? Or has the damage done to the Taliban mean we don't think we need an offensive in RCE? I just find it hard to believe that it is possible we've hammered the enemy enough in the east that we can move about the countryside at will with such low casualties.
Or are we really just treading water avoiding casualties before the election rather than trying to win, which would cause us to endure heavier casualties to do so? Or is the offensive still pending with our guys moving pieces around the board (which has been made more complicated by the early withdrawal of some of the surge troops and pending loss of more by the end of summer)?
From so far away, I just can't know and I haven't read anything conclusive one way or the other.
