Petraeus, Eikenberry Testify Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee

By Ravi Bhatia - Talk Radio News Service

A day after U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Eikenberry joined General David H. Petraeus and Deputy Secretary of State Jacob Lew to discuss the civilian efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The three testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Committee, chaired by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Aside from reiterating U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s acknowledgment that U.S. efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan would be difficult “but possible,” the three witnesses asserted that the United States would not abandon civilian efforts to stabilize the region, if and when U.S. troops remove the threat of al-Qaeda and the various Taliban networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“Many Pakistanis believe that America will once again abandon the region,” Kerry said in his opening statements. “Let me be clear: It would be a mistake for anyone in Pakistan or elsewhere to believe that the President’s words about drawing down troops from Afghanistan mean an end to our involvement in the region.”

President Barack Obama committed 30,000 additional troops to the region, in response to McChrystal’s request for 40,000. Unlike the McChrystal hearings, war protestors were not present in the Dirksen building hallways during Eikenberry, Patraeus and Lew’s testimonies.

None of the three witnesses could confirm Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai’s estimation that the country would not be able to pay for its own security until 2024. Nor could they provide an estimate to the cost of training and deporting civilian troops to the region for another 15 years. However, Eikenberry said there will be almost 1,000 civilians from “numerous government departments and agencies on the ground in Afghanistan” by early 2010, tripling the total number of civilians from early 2009.

“The integration of civilian and military effort has greatly improved over the last year, a process that will deepen as additional troops arrive and our civilian effort expands,” he said.

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a member of the committee, suggested that the witnesses’ testimonies made him believe that after $13 billion dollars given to Afghanistan for development and infrastructure efforts, “we are basically starting from scratch as it relates to development efforts.”

“We hope that Karzai will do everything right,” he said. “But, you know, we may prod and poke but at the end of the day, this depends on an Afghan government that can ultimately sustain itself.

“At some point we need to get the price tag here,” Menendez continued.

Lew disagreed with Menendez’s notion.

“Before the development assistance that you're describing, there was virtually no access to health care in Afghanistan,” Lew said. “[Now] there’s very substantial access to health care, in the 80-percent range. There were virtually no girls in schools, there are a lot of girls enrolled in schools - more every day, every week, every month. It’s fair to say we have an awful lot of work ahead of us. [But] I don’t think it’s quite the same as starting from scratch.”

U.S. Must Adopt Political Strategy In Afghanistan, Says AEI Expert

By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

In a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, called on the Obama administration to develop a political strategy in Afghanistan as an accompaniment to General Stanley McChrystals request for additional troops and a counterinsurgency campaign.

“We need to know what the administration’s political strategy in this crisis is going to be. Of course it’s not in General McChrystals plan, because it’s not his remit to develop a political strategy,” Kagan said.

“In order to conduct an effective counterinsurgency campaign you have to address the problems of the illegitimacy of the government that fuel insurgency...if the government was seen as legitimate you wouldn’t have an insurgency,” explained Kagan.

Gen. McChrystal’s assessment on the war in Afghanistan called for a “surge” of approximately 40,000 troops, and said protecting the Afghan populations is its highest priority. His assessment also included the key element of partnering with the National Afghan Security Forces (NASF). The assessment concluded that a partnership with the NASF would therefore hold the Afghan government more accountable.

J Alexander Thier, Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the United States Institute of Peace said, “I believe apart from the troops, we need to focus much more intensively on this effort to create government accountability and capacity particularly at the sub-national level.”

“Gen. McChrystal has done his homework...what we need to see is the homework for the rest of the effort, which is a political strategy to go along with this,” Kagan added.

House Armed Services Chair Backs McChrystal's Afghan Strategy

By Meagan Wiseley - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

In a hearing Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Ranking member Howard McKeon (R-Calif.) said they both strongly support General Stanley McChrystal’s proposed counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan and have sent a letter to McChrystal requesting him to testify before the Committee.

Retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane echoed a similar sentiment during his testimony before the committee, saying the U.S. must “put in play a COIN strategy with the appropriate military, civilian and financial resources.”

Gen. Keane, who retired in 2003, described the U.S. attempt of counter-terrorism (CT) in Iraq between 2003-2007 and said during that period of time “we were failing and we nearly lost the country.” He says the situation in Afghanistan has "simply gotten worse” because of the CT strategy being used in currently. He believes CT strategies are valuable, but must be used as a compliment to a “fully integrated civil-military counterinsurgency strategy.”

Gen. Keane cautioned the use of a COIN strategy without the proper amount of troops or resources saying it will “fail and fail miserably.”

However, a voice of dissent came from Dr. Paul Pillar, former Deputy Directory of the CIA’s Counter-terrorist Center, who instead believes the U.S. should avoid bolstering its military presence.

"An expanded military effort in the cause of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan would be unwarranted," Pillar said. The former CIA official went on to say he believes the cost of counterinsurgency, U.S. equities, monetary resources and American lives, would outweigh the benefit.

"Last week the President told members of congress that his decision [on the war in Afghanistan] will be timely," McKeon said during the hearing's close. "My hope and expectation is that the President will make a decision on resources in the coming week and stick with it."

"Time is of the essence,” McKeon added.

Counter-Terrorism Expert: U.S. Needs Strong Presence In Afghanistan

By Leah Valencia, University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

During testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former CIA counter-terrorism official Robert Grenier said that a strong U.S presence in Afghanistan could be useful in fighting Al-Qaida.

Wednesday's hearing was set against the backdrop of the national debate on the U.S.'s military policy in Afghanistan. President Obama is currently under pressure to decide whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan as requested by General Stanley McChrystal.

In his remarks, Grenier said that a “robust presence” of forces is needed in Afghanistan.

“Much of our relative success against Al-Qaida leadership, particularly across the border in Pakistan, [we owe] to our intelligence and military platform we have inside Afghanistan,” Grenier said. “If that were to be diminished, I believe our success would diminish with it.”

Grenier said that a U.S. presence is crucial, but shot down suggestions that launching counter-terrorism operations offshore would be effective.

President Obama has yet to indicate if he will send more troops to Afghanistan.