More Alternatives for Afghanistan - The CT Strategy Posted by Michael Cohen

Here's some weekend reading for DA readers (well at least it's what I'll be reading) - Austin Grant Long's  recent Orbis article on what a counter-terrorism strategy in Afghanistan might look like. (This is a longer version of the the short piece I sent around a few days ago).

Austin makes a fairly compelling case for why a CT strategy makes more sense than the current COIN approach . . . and what it would look like. An excerpt below, but read the whole thing:

The troop increase authorized by the president for Afghanistan will not directly disrupt, dismantle, or defeat al Qaeda even if executed exactly as General McChrystal proposes. It will only indirectly be able to do so if Pakistan takes action against its Afghan proxies, who in turn allow al Qaeda to shelter with them, yet there is little prospect of that. Finally, the chance of actually succeeding in making Afghanistan stable in the first place is low if Pakistan does not take action against its Afghan proxies. 

Even attempting to stabilize Afghanistan as General McChrystal proposes will be extraordinarily expensive. This seems to pose an insoluble problem for the United States. This insoluble problem is why the counterterrorism option is important. If even a costly effort in Afghanistan cannot fully achieve the goal against al Qaeda, then it is crucial to determine whether a less costly effort can achieve a similar effect by keeping Afghanistan inhospitable to al Qaeda. This would be a clear and cost-effective alignment of resources with goals, the essence of strategy. 

Determining the viability of the counterterrorism option requires detailing what it might look like. Most discussion of the counterterrorism option has been vague. Riedel and O’Hanlon sum it up as ‘‘a few U.S. special forces teams, modern intelligence fusion centers, cruise-missile-carrying ships and unmanned aerial vehicles. . .’’ But there has been little effort to put flesh on this skeleton in terms of numbers and locations of U.S. troops. 

Comments

[r4i gold]

Well said and I agree to the point of the counter-terrorism option.I think now this issue will never be going to be solved.

[Surface grinding machine]

I have found so many ways through which we can get the good results.Anyways keep it up and keep continue with your valuable thoughts.

[Surface grinding machine]

无语

[professional business cards]

I think if you have some good solutions that are good to try for us to solve the counter terrorism then you must contact authorities for it and give them some good advice.

[managerial accounting homework]

Wow nice title in this blog that GAO Slams Bush on Terrorism - says Al Qaeda attack likely and we have no plan.

[Replica handbags UK]

A four year old little boy was at the doctor's office with his mother in the waiting room when he spotted a pregnant lady on the other side of the room. Having nothing better to do, he walks over to her and inquisitively asks "Why is your stomach so big?"

[Amelio]

This is one of the best posts that I’ve ever seen; you may include some more ideas in the same theme. I’m still waiting for some interesting thoughts from your side in your next post.
http://joe060701.wordpress.com/

[vibram five fingers]

what it might look like. Most discussion of the counterterrorism option has been vague. Riedel and O’Hanlon sum it up as ‘‘a few U.S. special forces teams, modern intelligence fusion centers, cruise-missile-carrying ships and unmanned aerial vehicles. . .’’ But there has been little effort to put flesh on this skeleton in terms of numbers and locations of U.S. troops.

[vibram five fingers]

who in turn allow al Qaeda to shelter with them, yet there is little prospect of that. Finally, the chance of actually succeeding in making Afghanistan stable in the first place is low if Pakistan does not take action against its Afghan proxies.

[http://www.mbtsandal.com]

I like this article expressing thanks to your report