The war in Afghanistan has become one of the most contentious topics in modern contemporary American political Affairs.  Following the briefings and recommendations by Military Commanders fighting the war, emerging divergent views across the US political landscape propelled the Obama administration to grapple with a critical and strategic national security policy decision of our times.   

Over the past months radical conservative war mongers left no stone unturned.  Robust calls for the deployment of more US troops to Afghanistan was the epitome of their political windmill.  Although  pledges of sending more troops to Afghanistan was the hallmark of their historic campaign periods, the Obama administration was not hesitant to clarify that it is carefully assessing the situation, consulting with military commanders,  and thus considering the rightful strategic national security options that are based on the realities of the Afghani political, economical and security landscape.

Carefully analyzing the war after 8years of combat operations in Afghanistan, assertions that the US and her allies have lost the war are unfounded.  In comparison to Russian military operations in Afghanistan, the United States deployment of superior military technology in both the air and land operations has become the central tenet of using strategic counter –insurgency maneuvers in confronting the Taliban.  The US and allies have also accrued less fatalities in comparison to the Russian’s who suffered an untold human and material destruction.

Considering the type of warfare in Afghanistan – counter Insurgency - a change in strategy is what the US and coalition forces need.  It is important to understand the strategic operational differences between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The war in Iraq was one fought in build –up areas, whilst that of Afghanistan is mostly in open rigorous and mountainous terrain.  Tactically a surge with more troops works effectively in a combat build – up zone than an open rigorous and mountainous terrain.  Deploying thousands of troops in the rigorous mountainous terrains of Afghanistan in a counter – insurgency war would constitute no strategic or tactical move against insurgence immersed in groups across the mountainous hinterlands of Afghanistan.

Among some major options currently under consideration by the Obama administration includes; providing training and support for Afghani Troops; employing counter-insurgency measures; and using economic development as a tool of engagement.  An immediate deployment of the extra 40, 000 or more US troops is one delicate policy decision that remains to be under considerations; a brilliant policy move that the Obama administration has adopted. 

Amidst a global economic meltdown that is shaping social, political and economic horizons across the world, the international community has a moral responsibility to end global conflicts that are retrogressively shifting the eradication of human poverty and capacity- development as a centrality of global governance.  It is must also be understood that building strong economies constitutes an embodiment of strengthening both national and international security.  In her journal article titled The Threat of Global Poverty published by The National Interest: Spring 2006: 83, Dr. Suzan Rice, US Ambassador to the United Nations opined that:

The Primary flaw in the conventional argument that poverty is unrelated to terrorism is its failure to capture the range of ways in which poverty can exacerbate the threat of transnational terrorism – not at the individual level but at the state and regional level.  Poverty bears indirectly on terrorism by sparking conflict, and eroding state capacity, both of which create conditions that can facilitate terrorist activity.

Changing strategies in Afghanistan therefore requires both a “preventive development,” and “development continuum” approaches; a combination of both emergency and humanitarian development, and a recovery and reconstruction developmental efforts.  Dr. Suzan Rice could therefore not have said it better.

In view of the compounding implications of  global conflicts on economic development, national and international security, it is paramount that a strategic end to the conflict in Afghanistan take a forefront of policy decisions that will foster peace, strengthen global  human development and eradicate poverty across conflict prone Afghanistan.  President Obama must therefore consider the following policy prescriptive measures on the war in Afghanistan.  They include but not limited to

v No immediate deployment of large numbers of troops

v Continue providing support and training for Afghani Troops

v Support  Afghani Troops to take a forefront  of ground operations – It is imperative that Afghani security forces start taking responsibility

v Strengthened security in Afghani towns and cities

v Using modern technology it is paramount to adopt counter-insurgency measures and tactics in confronting insurgents across the rigorous mountainous hinterlands of Pakistan.

v Employ more resources in poverty eradication, human development, conflict prevention and recovery efforts

This is just a food for thought.

By Binneh s Minteh, Former Gambian Army First Lieutenant

The author is an independent Researcher, Analyst and Consultant.  He also produces The Sword of Truth at http://www.sofawarrior.blog.com/.  He could be reach at bsm235@nyu.edu