ANALYSIS: Troop cuts herald shift in U.S. approach

Wednesday, June 22, 2011 | 9:22 p.m. CDT; updated 3:18 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, July 19, 2011

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's withdrawal plan for Afghanistan marks the beginning of the end of a troop-intensive approach to countering a Taliban insurgency that until recent months had fought the U.S. and its NATO allies to a standstill.

As the war grinds on, the Obama administration will shift the U.S. military's focus more toward targeting terrorist leaders while giving Afghans more of the lead in fighting, and eventually reconciling with, the Taliban.

What remains in doubt is the endgame — finding a political solution to the conflict.

Is the Taliban under enough military pressure to compel it to enter serious peace talks with Kabul? Robert Gates, the soon-to-retire defense secretary, thinks not — at least not before the end of this year. But recognizing that Afghans and Americans alike are weary of war, Gates conceded that the current troop-intensive U.S. approach is not sustainable.

The U.S. troop withdrawal will accelerate next year, with all 30,000 of the "surge" troops that Obama ordered to Afghanistan expected to be gone by late 2012, leaving about 68,000 U.S. troops and a few tens of thousands from other coalition countries. As the force shrinks, so will the scope and ambition of the U.S.-led military campaign.

The shift is a setback for the war's current commander, Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the military's guidebook for counterinsurgency. A year ago, Petraeus and the like-minded commander he replaced, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, were talking about a "fully resourced, comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign" in Afghanistan as the key to turning around a stalemated war.

Petraeus is now slated to retire from the Army and become CIA director, and the next Afghanistan commander, Gen. John Allen, will be trimming the U.S. sails.

In his speech to the nation Wednesday night, Obama was expected to say that the U.S. intends to remain committed to Afghanistan's future — not least because it is in U.S. interests to prevent the country from reverting to a haven for al-Qaida. However, by the end of 2014, all U.S. and foreign combat forces would be out under a plan announced in Lisbon, Spain, last November and publicly endorsed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The speech heralds a historic turning point in the war but not the first since Obama took office in January 2009. That spring, he fired his top commander in Kabul, Army Gen. David McKiernan, in favor of McChrystal and "a fundamentally new approach" he advocated.

In an assessment for Gates, McChrystal wrote that the war could be lost unless Obama was willing to redefine the fight and send thousands more U.S. troops.

The president accepted the core of that advice, which included McChrystal's view that the central objective must be to protect the Afghan population, not just from Taliban violence and intimidation, but also from "corruption and coercion."

Obama balked at McChrystal's request for some 40,000 additional forces, however, and settled on roughly 30,000.

The phased drawdown of American troops beginning this summer will not signal an immediate abandonment of the "protect the people and bolster their government" approach. But it does suggest that with the 2012 presidential election looming, Obama is ready to begin scaling back his war goals.

"From the standpoint of the American psyche, I think this will be welcomed," said Kiron K. Skinner, director of Carnegie Mellon University's Center for International Relations and Politics and a former adviser to the Pentagon. She said the White House also calculates that it will help Obama as he heads into a re-election fight.

One factor that Obama considered in coming to his decision on troop withdrawals is the risk that starting a U.S. departure now would trigger a rush to the exits by Britain, Germany and other NATO allies with troops in Afghanistan. The allies were long skeptical of the wisdom of a troop-heavy approach to the conflict.

Also weighing on Obama is an increasingly impatient Congress. Many lawmakers share the view of Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, who says the time has come to scale back the war effort.

"The cost of our efforts in Afghanistan in terms of money and lives is a significant strain on our nation, and we must begin to responsibly reduce our commitments," Smith said before the president's address.

Robert Burns has covered military and national security issues for The Associated Press since 1990. He can be reached at

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Harold Sutton June 23, 2011 | 10:05 a.m.

This President is the same person who promised "hope and change", and as a Senator tried to make General Petraeous out to be a liar back in summer of 2008. And now he promotes him as the best man for the job.

Does that mean he has properly trained and instructed the General now???

It is time to bring them all home!!

Back in WW2 and before, the way to win a war was total committment. Since then, with the United Nations and too many "media and political experts" involved, we are looking more and more incompetent daily.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 23, 2011 | 11:25 a.m.

Harold Sutton wrote:

"This President is the same person who promised "hope and change", and as a Senator tried to make General Petraeous out to be a liar back in summer of 2008."

When are people going to view politician's promises with the same skepticism as they would view the pitch of a used car salesman, or real estate agent?

Politicians keep their jobs by selling themselves. It's no different than any other sales job, and has the same reward for obfuscation and dishonesty.


(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 23, 2011 | 2:20 p.m.

It could also be a case of expectations being seriously greater than reality. A comment was made last week on TV that dissatisfaction with Obama is not due to his being a bad president but due to his not proving to be a great president. In fact he may have done as well as could be expected under the circumstances in which we presently find ourselves.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.