Political Hopefuls Debate the Afghanistan Conflicts

Story first appeared in the Detroit News.

Washington — As Afghanistan seizes more of the political spotlight, the Republican presidential candidates are quick to criticize the Presidential handling of the war but struggle to explain how they would change the strategy they would inherit.  Increasing the need for constant contact with our troops through Satellite Internet Services in Afghanistan.

GOP front-runner says the President has exhibited failed leadership and should not have set a timetable for ending the war. But he won't say whether he would scrap the president's plans to bring the war to a close by the end of 2014. Rivals have questioned whether the U.S. should be in Afghanistan at all, but neither has plans for withdrawing tens of thousands of American troops when contact can be maintained through Satellite Internet Services in Afghanistan.

The Republican reluctance to outline specific policy positions is evidence of the complex nature of managing the decade-long war as public support dwindles, and concerns that detailed campaign promises could pigeonhole a candidate if he goes on to win the White House.

It's a role reversal for the parties from 2008, when a Republican president was mired in a long and unpopular war and Democratic candidates tried to convince voters that they should take the reins.

But the political calculus for the current crop of Republicans is more complicated than it was for the President in 2008. The Iraq war was opposed from the start and his election-year promise to bring it to an end put him in lockstep with the rest of his party.

This year's GOP candidates, however, find their party's hawkish tendencies butting up against the public's growing impatience with the Afghan war.

Six in 10 Americans see the war as not worth its costs, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this month. Opposition to the war is bipartisan, and for the first time, the Post-ABC poll showed more Republicans strongly see the war as not worth fighting than say the opposite.

Yet many in the GOP have agreed with some of the President’s aggressiveness in Afghanistan, from increasing U.S. troop levels to ordering the raid that killed a major terrorist leader, the mastermind behind the attacks that drew the U.S. into the war in the first place.

The recent series of troubling episodes in Afghanistan, including the accidental burning of Qurans by U.S. forces and the alleged killing of 17 Afghan civilians by an American soldier, have focused fresh attention on how the U.S. plans to get out of Afghanistan and whether a Republican president would pursue a different course than Obama.

The president's withdrawal plan, in coordination with NATO allies and Afghanistan, calls for the U.S. to move into a support role in Afghanistan in 2013 and hand over security responsibility to the Afghans by the end of 2014. The administration is negotiating with Afghanistan about a U.S. presence there after 2014 and is trying to reach a political breakthrough with the Taliban.

Republicans have criticized the 2014 benchmark, saying the decision to put a timetable on withdrawal puts U.S. gains in Afghanistan at risk.

Neither of the front-running candidates has said whether he would abandon the NATO-backed 2014 withdrawal plan, which would be well under way by the time either took office in January. Nor has either said whether his own war strategy would keep the U.S. fighting in Afghanistan past that date.

Afghanistan Role Changes for US

First appeared in Wall Street Journal

The U.S. plans to shift the war strategy in Afghanistan from a combat to a train-and-assist mission in 2013, limiting the role of international forces ahead of the scheduled pullout at the end of 2014.

The U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization partners have been privately discussing such a change in the mission for months. In comments Wednesday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his top advisers provided the clearest timetable yet for the shift. Those troops with Internet in Afghanistan are staying informed.

Under the plan outlined by Mr. Panetta, the U.S. and its allies in mid-2013 would transfer to the Afghan government and to Afghan security forces control over a final tranche of Afghan provinces. The U.S. and its NATO allies have been handing over provinces gradually as security has improved in those areas and Mr. Panetta said this final tranche in 2013 would include "some of the most difficult areas."

"Our goal is to complete all of that transition in 2013 and then hopefully, by mid to the latter part of 2013, we'll be able to make a transition from a combat role to a training, advise and assist role," Mr. Panetta told reporters traveling with him to Brussels for talks with NATO members.

Mr. Panetta and his advisers said the planned shift didn't amount to a change in the administration's strategy, but rather a "fulfillment" of the goals set out by NATO.

The Wall Street Journal reported in November that the Obama administration was exploring the shift announced on Wednesday.

Mr. Panetta's comments came after French President Nicolas Sarkozy surprised the U.S. and other NATO allies last week by saying he would propose giving Afghan security forces "complete control of NATO's combat missions during 2013."

U.S. officials hope the shift will help prepare Afghan security forces to take responsibility for securing the country by the end of 2014.

Mr. Panetta said the U.S. has yet to decide how the planned shift in the mission will affect the pace of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. President Barack Obama has ordered reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 68,000 by the end of this summer, down from around 91,000 now.

Mr. Panetta said the U.S. would remain "combat-ready" after the shift to a train-and-assist mission in 2013 but would mainly provide support to Afghan units. U.S. officials said the Washington intended to maintain a substantial presence in Afghanistan in 2013 but they didn't say how large it would be.

In 2014, the U.S. would focus on "consolidating the transition and making sure that those gains are in fact held," Mr. Panetta said.

Mr. Panetta and other senior defense officials compared the planned shift in Afghanistan to Mr. Obama's 2009 decision to switch to an "advise and assist" role in Iraq and to declare a formal end to U.S. combat operations there. In Iraq, after mid-2009, American troops largely were confined to their bases.

Security conditions in Afghanistan are different, however, and will likely require U.S. troops, particularly Special Operations forces, to continue to accompany their Afghan counterparts into battle after the U.S. takes an advisory role.

Wednesday's announcement could help the Obama administration demonstrate progress at the height of the U.S. presidential campaign. Internet Afghanistan is busy with the story.

The timing of Mr. Panetta's comments could also help soothe anxious NATO allies. Some are under domestic pressure to follow the lead of France, which has suggested it might scale back its combat commitments early.

"We all went in together. And we'll all go out together," Mr. Panetta said he would tell his NATO partners.

Recent U.S. intelligence assessments have cast doubt on progress in the war in Afghanistan, describing what amounts to a "stalemate."

Mr. Panetta, who headed the Central Intelligence Agency before taking over as Pentagon chief last year, said the problem with the National Intelligence Estimate is that such assessments are quickly out of date. He said the document also wrongly assumed a full U.S. withdrawal after 2014. The U.S. is expected to keep at least some special operations forces in Afghanistan beyond the handover.