November 24, 2009 7:52 AM

Strong Afghan Partner Needed to Succeed

By
David Morgan
Topics
Afghanistan
(AP Photo/Presidential Palace)
Gen. Stanley McChrystal may not get everything he wants when , but he may get more help from NATO.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante reports Mr. Obama is expected to announce between 20,000 and 30,000 troops will be committed — less than the 40,000 additional troops McChrystal requested.

Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institute, said that U.S. allies in Europe may actually provide more soldiers than expected on the Afghan front.

"They certainly have been pushed to ultimately put up more troops," he told "Early Show" anchor Harry Smith this morning.

"Of course, there was hope that they would contribute more. It hasn't happened yet, but that may compensate for any gap between what McChrystal has proposed and what Obama may want to provide."

O'Hanlon said that despite the many meetings which have been held by the president's war council to adjust America's goals in Afghanistan and the resources to be applied, a positive outcome is still not guaranteed no matter what the strategy.

"Because you need a strong host partner," O'Hanlon said. "You need a strong Afghan government, or at least a competent [one]. Even if it's just a mediocre one, one that at least starts to move forward.

"The good news here, even though President Karzai has a lot of cronies who are not very good actors and are corrupt, there are some people in key positions — who run, for example, the police and the army, his two top guys in the cabinet who do that — who are seen as pretty good, who are working pretty well with us.

"And we have this very vigorous program now to train the Afghans and essentially do an apprenticeship program with the Afghan army and police under McChrystal's proposal."

"This is a little bit like Iraq after the country was stabilized," Smith said.

"Iraq did work out, at least in military terms," O'Hanlon said. "We obviously see the politics there continue to be difficult. I'm not quite as confident yet that we're going to get there in Afghanistan, but the plan is equally intense and equally focused, and I think McChrystal frankly is as good as Petraeus, so I do have some reasons for hopefulness."

Hopefulness is certainly important. A new CBS News poll shows 69 percent of Americans think the war in Afghanistan is going badly, and only 36 percent believe more U.S. troops would make things better.

When asked what any commitment of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan may cost Mr. Obama among his supporters, particularly on the left, who are against a buildup, O'Hanlon admitted they will not be pleased by a strategy involving more American boots on the ground.

"Of course that's right, Harry. But I think the real risk is if the war isn't won. The left won't like this, but if in a year we can see progress, people will forget their original doubts and they'll be glad there is an exit strategy emerging ahead.

"The problem will be of course if we don't have progress in a year. That's going to mean that we reinvested in a failing mission, and that will be the problem."

  • David Morgan

    David Morgan is a senior editor at CBSNews.com and cbssundaymorning.com.

Add a Comment
by amacd385 November 24, 2009 12:26 PM EST
Obama's speech and his 'supposed' decision about Afghanistan will reveal far more than the war strategy in Afghanistan. For those who watch with careful eyes it will reveal EMPIRE.

The decision will be voiced through the mouth of Obama to be sure --- but the decision was already made before he was president, in fact before he even ran, and the decision itself was made by the EMPIRE.

America, our country, is now part of an arrogant, unresponsive, un-democratic, but quite sophisticated 'Vichy' Empire ---- which only pretends to allow the people to have any influence over any choices, directly, or through their supposed representative government.

This fact of sophisticated and guileful Empire manipulation and trickery of the people was well documented in 1994 by Thomas Frank in his "What's the Matter with Kansas" --- showing how contrived social 'values' manipulation was used by the Empire-controlled 'Republican Party' to trick stereotypical anti-intellectual conservative Kansans into voting against their own interests.

But now the coin has been flipped, and we need Frank to write a new book, "What?s the Matter with Massachusetts" in which he would lay bare how the Empire-controlled 'Democratic Party' tricked stereotypical self-described liberal ?wicked smart? Bostonians and supposedly highly educated intellectuals into voting for a second well educated (and now post-racial) president promising different 'values', but singing the same songs about "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" and waving banners of 'hope' and 'change' --- which have now been ignored with the same level of contempt and impunity as the last several Empire-controlled Republican and Democratic shills --- who did exactly NOTHING they promised!.

When such obvious contradictions to a government structure of supposed democracy occur many times in a row, but with both supposedly different political parties, and with differing levels of sophistication employed to fool dull and bright voters, the issue is not 'values' but one of deep 'government structure'. And the only conclusion to be made is that we are dealing with a deep and deadly problem of ?government structure?, which Ben Franklin would have immediately recognized as his fear of Empire supplanting a democratic Republic.

"The problem is not with our stars, Dear citizens, nor with this Obama, nor the previous Clinton nor Bush nor Reagan, nor even with ourselves, but with EMPIRE?

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
Reply to this comment
by Mortarman-29 November 24, 2009 11:18 AM EST
Strong United States President Needed to Succeed
Reply to this comment
by bankersvox November 24, 2009 11:05 AM EST
I am not an expert on foreign affairs, but I remember Viet Nam, and how under JKF and LBJ - we got so involved in the politics and became PC with self imposed rules, that we lost sight of the main mission, which was to WIN.
Here, is there a risk of the same ?
I doubt that Afg. will have a gov't that we would want, but so what.////
////// Our GOAL ? --- to get Al Queda, the leadership killed or captured.

/////// HOW - We need to dry up ALL sources of funds from the wealthy oil rich Arab countries including SUADIA ARABIA --- that somehow STILL make their way to them and are used to RADICALIZE others.

We need to shut down all of their outlets of propaganda , as we would have in WWII vs. the NAZI. TV and RADIO.

We need to bomb and destroy what ever infra structure they rely upon in Pakistan. We need the help of PAkistan ARMY and have a joint operation of the military in PAK to defend us and them. We do it together as allies.

We need to SHUT DOWN the radial MOSQUE and/or learning CENTERS set up by SAUDIA ARABIA ( Whabiasm) in all part of the world, including Europe and the US. Uprising and teaching terror will not be tolerated ! We must let IRAN know that the support of anti Western Terrorism in GAZA and Europe is not acceptable, and make good on the bold BUSH Doctrine. ( Charlie good question for all of us.)

On the long term, we need to recognize our own weaknesses , and get off of ARAB OIL, by building NUCLEAR ENERGY plants as part of our recovery, mandate the USE HYBRID CARS for everyone. Forget solar and wind, just stupid ideas vs. Nuclear. Sorry.

And some how we need to let it be known that We will not tolerate the abuse of WOMEN in that part of the world. We need to set up a council of DEMOCRACIES that hold similar values, and marginalze the UN - as a corrupt club of ruthless thug and dictators.

respectfully submitted to the world.
Reply to this comment
by truth-b-toll November 24, 2009 11:38 AM EST
Really ? well why didn't you just speak up earlier?
now that we know well we'll just be there a few more hundred years...
by Nikos_Retsos November 24, 2009 10:55 AM EST
First, the U.S. will never have a strong partner in Afghanistan because it is at war with the majority of the population - the Pashtun. Second, the effort to re-create the Iraq model in Afghanistan will not succeed because the U.S. based its Iraq model on the majority of the population - the ******. The U.S. effort in Afghanistan to create local militias - like the Sunnis based "Sons of Iraq" militia, proved to be only a temporary patch that will be detrimental in the long term U.S. policy in Iraq because it leaves behind "three" Anti-American blocks, the ******, the Sunnis, and the Kurds - the last due to the U.S. pro-Turkey policy.

Then, there is Pakistan, supposedly a strong U.S. partner, but actually the U.S. Achilles Heel in Central Asia. Pakistan is the U.S. ally for now because it is financially broke, and stays afloat with the tons of U.S. aid. But the U.S. focus on developing strong relations with India, and India's heavy involvement in various Afghanistan projects - which surely includes intelligence and undercover operations to undermine pro-Pakistani elements there - is certainly a bad omen for Pakistan. Pakistan, therefore, will never accept a pro-American and friendly to India regime in Afghanistan, and if they have to stab the U.S. in the back to achieve that, they will do it. They desperately need the money, but they won't sell their country for. That is why part of the ISI Intelligence is involved in anti-American activities. And the closer the U.S. gets to India, the harder the Pakistani involvement will become to subvert a U.S. and Indian friendly regime in Kabul. Those activities will be a must to ensure that they won't be surround by enemies one day! We can purchase some military cooperation from Pakistanis for now, but we cannot purchase their psyche, nor we can force them to scrap their long term survival plans in order to ensure success to our hegemonic plans.

Can the U.S. have a strong partner in Afghanistan? Not a chance - as long as the U.S. recognizes that India is a rising global superpower, and a more worthy partner to the U.S. than Pakistan. And anybody, who might think that the U.S. can have it both ways with India and Pakistan, either he doesn't understand the Pakistanis, or he is probably in a state of denial. Nikos Retsos, retired professor
Reply to this comment
by hugomutt1576 November 24, 2009 10:46 AM EST
Given the history and the dynamics of Afghanistan as a country,there is no liklihood of a strong partner ever emerging there for America .Even in neighboring Pakistan the U.S does not have such a partner.If there were such a partner in Afghanistan,perhaps there would'nt be any need fot the American troops there.The newest of the new American strategies however speaks of benchmars and a reliable partner in Afghanistan.It is therefore doomed right from the start.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Political Hotsheet

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook
  • Building You a Better Morning

  • CBS This Morning

    "CBS This Morning," anchored by Charlie Rose, Gayle King and Erica Hill, airs weekdays from 7 to 9 a.m. ET and at the same time in other time zones.
    Learn more...