Sending more troops to Afghanistan won't beat Taliban, say US experts
AS Britain and the US prepare to unveil a new strategy for Afghanistan, two eminent analysts have warned that a boosting of military numbers would play into the hands of al Qaeda and Taliban extremists.
In an article to be published this month, Steven Simon, a former adviser to the Clinton administration, and Professor Jonathan Stevenson of the US Naval War College, argue America and its allies should scale back ambitions for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Instead of state-building and counter-insurgency in Afghanistan, the allies should concentrate on suppressing al Qaeda and the attempts by extremists to destabilise Pakistan.
"Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan would probably fail," they warn in the article to be published in Survival, the journal of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. They say such an operation would need a reliable national government.
But the authors believe president Hamid Karzai has decreasing support from Afghans, particularly after the allegations of fraud and corruption surrounding the 20 August elections.
Under plans drawn up by America's military commander in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal - which have undergone 50 drafts and been delayed more than a month - the authors have learned that US troop levels will be increased from 68,000 to 78,000.
Britain, which has 9,100 troops in Afghanistan, and other allies will be asked to contribute more for security and to train Afghan forces, which are to be doubled.
While they support financial aid and training, Mr Simon and Professor Stevenson believe the Karzai government should be left to its own devices in cutting deals with the Taliban and forging anti-drugs policies.
Mr Simon and Professor Stevenson say a switch of US military muscle from Iraq to Afghanistan would be a mistake. It would take most of the efforts of the entire US field army of about 350,000 and already more than half of all America's 50,000 special forces are being used in Afghanistan.
