The Taliban thought they'd be home free once they didn't face American forces in the field every day. They were wrong:
The Taliban failed to capture any ground from Afghan security forces fighting for the first time without foreign firepower this fighting season, U.S. officials say, but the insurgents killed scores of soldiers, police and civilians in their campaign to weaken the government.
American and NATO officials say the fledgling army and police aren't ready to wage a sustained war against a determined insurgency.
Coming just 13 months before most foreign forces are to withdraw, the mixed results reported by U.S. military officials underline the unresolved question of whether some of those forces should stay.
The Taliban are suffering heavily in their efforts to inflict these casualties on Afghan security forces.
Seriously, don't despair:
The international press has done a good job of presenting the worst case scenarios for Afghanistan if the elections fail just as foreign troops are withdrawing. In this scenario, the Taliban and other insurgent groups will take over, the government will collapse, and the country will be ruled by factions engaged in continual civil war and skirmishes. This attitude not only turns away international groups, but discourages people in Afghanistan who see or hear the same message.
There is another scenario that must be presented, and one my peers and I, living and working in Afghanistan, feel is just as likely. In this other future for our country, fair and transparent elections will bring in a legitimate government that can work to keep insurgents at bay. There will be no return to the dark ages prior to 2000 that so many Afghans fear, with fewer innocent civilians being murdered and disruptions to civil society minimized.
But the Afghan security forces lack many capabilities that we need to provide (or hire contractors to provide), such as medical evacuation, fire support, surveillance, and logistics.
This reliance by Afghan forces on us for key military capabilities doesn't mean Afghans are doomed any more than Europe's reliance on American key military capabilities meant that NATO was doomed to losing the Libya War.
Obviously, the future of Afghanistan requires Afghans to succeed. That doesn't mean that success doesn't count--or can't happen--without the West's continued help. And if we don't lead this effort to help, the rest of the West will not step up alone.
I worry that a mistaken public impression that our years of efforts have been for nought will lead us to abandon Afghanistan when just a little help over the long run can nail down the success we've had and prevent the country from becoming a sanctuary again where jihadis will plan a bigger and better 9/11 attack.
If we don't intend to support the Afghans to win, why did President Obama bother to surge forces twice in Afghanistan?
UPDATE: Even the technologically advanced South Korean military still needs our help, remember, after all these decades:
Under an alliance agreement, the United States would transfer full operational control to South Korea in 2015 but Seoul has asked to postpone the transition. A deadline for 2102 was already delayed.
Admiral Samuel Locklear, head of US Pacific Command, which oversees all American forces in the region, sought to play down the significance of the timing at a news conference and did not say if the handover would go ahead as scheduled.
Does our successful defense of South Korea not count because South Korea still needs our help?
