August 8, 2009 7:20 AM

U.S. "Running Out Of Time" In Afghanistan

(CBS/AP)  Even with American troops headed soon from an increasingly quiet Iraq to a more turbulent Afghanistan, defeating extremists in Afghanistan is growing more complex and more urgent, President Bush's senior defense advisers say.

"Frankly, we are running out of time," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, referring to the international effort to stabilize Afghanistan.

"I'm not convinced we're winning in Afghanistan," said Mullen, adding quickly, "I'm convinced we can."

What is needed, he said, is better Afghan governance, more foreign investment, a viable alternative to poppy farming, greater cooperation with Pakistan and more U.S. nonmilitary assistance.

Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, testifying together one day after President Bush announced that one Marine battalion and one Army brigade would be shifted from Iraq to Afghanistan this fall and winter, both stressed the futility of relying too much on military power in Afghanistan.

"We cannot kill our way to victory," Mullen said.

Gates did not address the issue of whether U.S. forces are winning, but after the hearing his press secretary, Geoff Morrell said Gates sees the conflict as an ill-fated attempt by the Taliban to overthrow the government.

"The secretary believes we won the war in Afghanistan back in 2001-2002 when we drove the Taliban from power," Morrell said. "They no longer run the country. They no longer control any significant territory within the country; however they are trying to reassert themselves ... and they will not be successful."

U.S. commanders in Afghanistan say they need another 10,000 troops - about three times as many as they will receive this winter under the troop deployment Bush announced. The commanders also urge more nonmilitary aid and say the Afghan government must perform better.

Gates said the insurgency in Afghanistan has gained "greater ambition, sophistication and coordination" since 2006, and he underlined the importance of denying them haven in neighboring Pakistan.

"As in Iraq, until the insurgency is deprived of safe havens, insecurity and violence will persist," Gates said. He was alluding, at least in part, to the effect of having eliminated Iraq's Anbar province as a haven for Sunni Arab insurgents - a key to recent overall security improvements in Iraq.

Mullen, who has visited Pakistan frequently since he became Joint Chiefs chairman last fall, made a similar point.

"Until we work more closely with the Pakistani government to eliminate the safe havens from which they operate, the enemy will only keep coming," he said.

He lauded the efforts of U.S. and allied troops to hunt down the Taliban and other insurgent forces and their progress in training and expanding the number of Afghan security forces.

"But until those Afghan forces have the support of local leaders to improve security on their own, we will only be there as a crutch - and a temporary one at that," said the four-star admiral.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, lashed out at the U.S. Wednesday, saying the cross-border military raids executed in the last week were not in keeping with any military agreement between the two nations.

The House committee hearing was remarkable in its lack of partisan debate over U.S. strategy in Iraq and for its sharp focus on what more can be done to stabilize Afghanistan, the launching pad for al Qaeda's terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. In response to those attacks, U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 and drove the Taliban out of power in a matter of weeks.

The Iraq war began in March 2003 and has consumed vastly more U.S. military resources.

Meeting with Bush in the Oval Office on Wednesday, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani praised the president's military buildup, saying, "There is no inch of Iraqi land under the control of terrorists."

Bush told Talabani - who recently had knee surgery and a shunt placed in an artery at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. - that conditions remain difficult in Iraq, but security gains were allowing him to pull out troops.

"The Iraqis want there to be fewer U.S. troops," Bush said. "The United States wants there to be fewer U.S. troops. But both of us want to realize that vision based upon success."

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the committee's chairman, applauded "the military's successes" in Iraq while also arguing that the Bush administration has failed to do all that is necessary in Afghanistan.

"When will the conditions in Iraq be good enough, and when will the conditions in Afghanistan have deteriorated enough to warrant the re-prioritization of focus and resources that's required to ensure the long-term success of the Afghanistan mission?" Skelton asked in his opening statement.

Neither Gates nor Mullen had a precise answer. Both made clear that Iraq will remain a priority, and Gates said he hoped the next U.S. administration takes a "cautious and flexible" approach to Iraq.

"I would also urge our leaders to keep in mind that we should expect to be involved in Iraq for years to come, although in changing and increasingly limited ways," Gates said.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain has said he would keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as it takes to achieve victory, and that he would not withdraw forces until security conditions allow. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, meanwhile, proposes to withdraw U.S. combat forces within 16 months.

Gates hinted at possible further troop cuts in Iraq next year, but he also said a go-slow approach is justified by several circumstances, including slow progress on the political front.

"I worry that the great progress our troops and the Iraqis have made has the potential to override a measure of caution born of uncertainty," Gates said. "Our military commanders do not yet believe our gains are necessarily enduring - and they believe that there are still many challenges and the potential for reversals in the future."

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 85 Comments
by lasercat-2009 September 15, 2008 1:18 AM EDT
Your 12 MPG vehicle is funding the terrorists every time you fill up.
Reply to this comment
by lasercat-2009 September 15, 2008 12:50 AM EDT
Ever wonder why nobody else cares about Afghanistan and the Tali ban but the U.S.? Ever wonder why the sun rises and sets. Probably not. Use your brain it''s that fat thing between your ears.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb September 13, 2008 8:08 PM EDT
The real question is why is it that only the U.S. cares about what happens in Afghanistan? You get the feeling that if the U.S. didn`t care what happened in Afghanistan no one else would! Oh sure, everyone cares with lip service but its always the U.S. sacrificing with action and then dragging others along.
Reply to this comment
by claydowner September 13, 2008 5:56 PM EDT
We have been in Afghanistan far too long. The local Afghans no longer want us in their country. Americans never have bothered to learn enough about the culture to really fight an effective counterinsurgency war. In these small brushfire wars you have to win the locals over to your side politically. We have failed to do this. We never had enough troops in Afghanistan because of the Iraq war. Our Army with only 500,000 troops was never made for these kinds of wars of occupation and nation building. We need to leave Afghanistan in the next couple of years. We need to leave Iraq even sooner.

Senator Kent Conrad gave a press conference this week concerning our budget deficits. Our national debt is going to increase this year by over $800 billion. Our budget deficit is over $407 billion for fiscal 2008. Our trade deficits are getting worse at nearly $70 billion this last month. We can not afford to keep spending $12 to $15 billion on these stupid wars unless we want to become a nation of paupers.
Reply to this comment
by olfishgut September 12, 2008 12:24 PM EDT
Sarah Palin will get that Afgan pipeline for us, no how many people we have to sacrifice to get it. All these liberals are a bunch of cry babies.
Reply to this comment
by samsel3 September 12, 2008 11:04 AM EDT
More than a year and half before 911 the CIA Special Activities Division was conducting operations in Afghanistan, trying to topple the Taliban regime for the TAPI Caspian Sea Oil & Gas Pipelines...........We now call such activities terror.



February 12, 1998 John J. Maresca vp of UNOCAL oil appeared before a House sub committee. The purpose of the meeting was to gain support for exploitation of oil & natural gas resources, for the rights purchased by BIG OIL in the Caspian Sea area.

In his testimony he stated, "The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets ". The exploitation option stated : "One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed by American companies because of U.S. sanctions (with Iran ) . The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which of course has it''''s own unique challenges. " He continued saying, " the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments,lenders (world monitary fund & world bank ) ,and our company "......"

UNOCAL and other American companies are prepared to undertake the job ". Aconsortium of oil & gas companies have taken over where UNOCAL left off.
Reply to this comment
by samsel3 September 12, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
The Israel Turkey pipeline has been in the works for some time now. In April of 2006 Israel & Turkey made their announcement which included four pipelines which will bypass Syria & Lebanon. The source of the oil is the BTC pipeline from the Caspian Sea Region. Shareholders in the BTC pipeline are: British Petroleum, AzBTC, Chevron, Statoil, TPAO, ENI, Total, Itochu, INPEX, ConocoPhillips & Amerada Hess. Another very important factor on the war with Lebanon is that Israel will have a strategic role in protecting the pipeline and transportation corridor out of Ceyhan Turkey. The strategy will weaken Russian oil s role in central asia and also isolate Iran.
Reply to this comment
by samsel3 September 12, 2008 10:58 AM EDT
Since the Port sits on the Mediterranian it already has the capability of bypassing Iran and Lebanon to supply the Israelis more securely through the Suez Canal than any land-locked pipeline could.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 03:59 PM : Sep 11, 2008

Israel will be protecting air space from Ceyran, Turkey to Ashkelon down the coast for the four new oil & gas pipelines being built. Product will be piped through Israel to the Red Sea and exported to Asian markets.
Reply to this comment
by labrat9999 September 11, 2008 8:37 PM EDT
Hot off the press at ABC..On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Gov. Sarah Palin took a hard-line approach on national security and said that war with Russia may be necessary if that nation invades another country.
Reply to this comment
by ajmarine111 September 11, 2008 8:33 PM EDT
Maybe YOU want 4 more years of that type of Incompetence... for me? I''''m voting Democratic top to bottom.


Posted by skyk239 at 05:25 PM : Sep 11, 2008



The orginal question was "Who is financing the insurgents?" I tried to provide an answer.


What did my answer have to do with your statement above?

I''m an Independent, but everytime I run into a Dem like you,...you are just driving me away from Obama.

Think about it.

Reply to this comment
See all 85 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook