8/17/2019 (Afghanistan-Evolving Situation) US Must Secure Its Gains in Afghanistan (Rep. Buck McKeon) Real Clear Defence.…

1/2

Return to the Article

March 20, 2013

U.S. Must Secure Its Gains in Afghanistan

By Rep. Buck McKeon

 

The war in Afghanistan is fast approaching an inflection point. This year, NATO military forces will transition from

combat operations to a narrower mission limited to counter terrorism and training and assisting the Afghan securityforces.

In spite of the incredible achievements coalition and Afghan forces

have made, the region continues to live under the threat of 

extremism, instability, and nuclear proliferation – which is why a continued presence in central Asia falls squarely in the

 peg of American national security interests. And it is not unusual. Americans have recognized the need for a continued

military presence after the end of other combat operations. Allied forces will focus on standing Afghanistan up as a

stable ally in an unforgiving neighborhood, much as we did in Japan, Germany, and South Korea. Like our efforts in

these countries, we won’t commit our sons and daughters and our treasure simply to ensure democracy in Afghanistan

can flourish or to rebuild a war torn country out of kindness. We must secure our military gains in Afghanistan because

ensuring their security and stability is directly related to securing our own.

In many ways it’s harder than any post-war challenge we have previously faced. Defeating terrorism is a long game. For 

the scourge of suicide bombings and headline-grabbing attacks on civilians to disappear as a battlefield tactic, not only

must the terrorists be beaten in combat, their narrative must be disproven and the civilians they target must reject their 

tactics and disavow their safe havens.

The Taliban have largely been defeated on the field of battle. They are now limited to headline grabbing attacks in city

centers, such as the recent attack during my visit earlier this month, which coincided with Secretary Hagel’s first trip.

As the local Afghans I met with know, a despicable attack on civilians is a sign of weakness, not strength.

 Nevertheless, the Taliban perpetuate their spin that the Americans have no more fortitude than the Soviets and will

abandon Afghanistan to chaos. Sadly, but understandably, Afghans are listening. A crisis of confidence is ensuing.

The Afghans I met with are willing to fight for their country, but they are uncertain we will remain to advise them. Wehave it within our power to prove the Taliban wrong and ensure Afghanistan is never again allowed to become a

spawning pool for terrorists.

Relatively speaking, it won’t take much - significantly fewer forces than we have in Korea today and only a quarter of 

what the military’s currently spending in Afghanistan. It now falls on the Obama Administration and the Karzai

government to forge a bilateral security agreement that provides the framework for this enduring security.

Unfortunately, President Obama failed to achieve a similar accord with the Baghdad government when the stakes were

not nearly as high. Although Iraq has held together, it is undeniable that Islamic militants now look at Iraq as

low-hanging fruit for what should otherwise have been a strong U.S. ally in a pretty tough neighborhood.

ClearDefense - Print Version http://www.realcleardefense.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realc

3/21/2013 1

8/17/2019 (Afghanistan-Evolving Situation) US Must Secure Its Gains in Afghanistan (Rep. Buck McKeon) Real Clear Defence.…

2/2

A bilateral security agreement is not trivial to negotiate. For our troops to assist our Afghan partners, they need freedom

of movement across the countryside. As with the rest of our overseas partnerships, the Government of Afghanistan

cannot levy taxes upon our military assistance. Furthermore, American forces accused of a crime must be held

accountable to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Let’s be clear - this does not mean that U.S. forces should be

“immune” from prosecution.

These criteria must be negotiated in full recognition of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. To agree with these terms, President

Karzai must be able to demonstrate that Afghanistan’s security will be improved. This is one of the few areas where

lessons learned from Iraq are helpful. Unless we are willing to clearly articulate our commitment upfront, it is no wonder 

President Karzai is unwilling to extend his political capital to secure a meaningful agreement.

This is not to excuse his recent behavior. It is unconscionable to suggest that we are cooperating with the very same

enemy who attacked us, to guarantee a longer presence in Afghanistan. Every day that we remain is a day that our 

children, siblings, and parents are gone from us, with the risk that they will not come home. Every day we remain,

taxpayers must write a check from a shrinking bank account. After September 11th, the majority of Americans swore to

stop our enemy from being able to keep its safe havens in Afghanistan. I was one of those and I am committed to

getting the job done right. But without a willing partner in Afghanistan, I will not support an unworkable strategy that

gets us deeper into debt without an increase in our own security.

As a first step, I believe we ought to have a tough, public conversation about troop levels post-2014. The President is

silent on the issue, although there has been plenty of speculation about what the White House might do. CentralCommand commander General James Mattis has testified that his recommendation is 13,600 troops. My take away

from speaking to our current commander in Afghanistan, General Joe Dunford, and his predecessor, General John Allen,

is that there are risks and opportunities associated with a variety of force levels. I am sure the President has received

wise counsel from each of these officers.

I believe that numbers count. We have our mission with our Afghan allies and we must keep adequate force protection

for the troops who stay behind. For their sake, I would rather pursue a less risky option and dial it back if we are more

successful than we anticipate. General Mattis’ recommendation seems to be a reasonable insurance policy.

This has been a long, tough war. But after a decade of fighting, we’re on the verge of setting Afghanistan on the right

 path. President Obama can be the President that defied history and pulled Afghanistan from its dark fate, principally for 

the good of Americans. Or he can be the President that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

Page Printed from: http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2013/03/20/us_must_secure_its_gains_in_afghanistan_beyond_2014_106486.html at March 21, 2013 - 03:03:30

AM EDT

ClearDefense - Print Version http://www.realcleardefense.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realc

3/21/2013 1