Robert Pape , professor of political science at the University of Chicago testified today before the House Armed Services Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. Arguing against a troop increase in Afghanistan, the professor argued instead for a containment strategy where Western and Afghan forces would protect towns from increasing Taliban takeover but gradually scale-down forces while still financially aiding locals from afar. Pape believes that the presence of American troops has largely caused the insurgency to take place. He says in his New York Times piece, “The more Western troops we have sent to Afghanistan, the more the local residents have viewed themselves as under foreign occupation, leading to a rise in suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks.”
While it seems to be common sense that the presence of American troops in a combat area increases the chances of American troops being attacked, the assertion that the presence of the Western troops is the cause of the violence seems dubious. Rather, the relative absence of American troops has left a power vacuum in South Afghanistan that the Taliban has exploited to develop an insurgency. As recently in 2006, there were only 20,000 American forces in Afghanistan, while there were 160,000 American forces in Iraq during the 2007 surge– a country smaller than Afghanistan in both geographic size and population. During this time, the Afghan Taliban made advances over the Pashtun region and suicide attacks against Americans and Afghan government security forces skyrocketed to an average of around 120 incidences per year since 2006.
If we try a containment strategy without more troops, there is absolutely no guarantee that the Taliban will not continue to strengthen and secure more Afghan towns, including Kandahar. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda will enjoy a safe haven in the Taliban-occupied areas and have resources available to train foreigners for attacks in Western Countries. The safe havens allowed the network to flourish in the late 1990s when American troops were entirely absent, and that flourishing safe haven is reported to be happening again along the lawless Pakistan border.
Our troops are not the problem, but rather, the problem is the Taliban. Our troops could be part of the solution in defeating Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan if the requests for additional troops are approved by the president.
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
2Anglico| 10.22.09 @ 1:59PM
Yes, Mr. Pape, and the presence of cops on the streets causes crack house lodgers to kill the cops.
Crusader| 10.22.09 @ 2:44PM
Throwing more troops at the problem in Afghanistan without a change in ROE is like throwing money at any lib-backed money-pit: Education, War on Poverty, etc. For some reason the USA thinks we can use the failed "hearts and minds" strategy of Viet Nam in Afghanistan. How's that workin' out for us so far?
There's only one way to deal with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc etc etc. Only problem is you can't say it in "polite company."
Pingback| 10.23.09 @ 12:14AM
President Obama’s rhetoric is dividing this nation and fueling hatred—much of it aime links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Rich Rostrom| 10.23.09 @ 3:42AM
Crusader: "hearts & minds" worked just fine in Viet Nam. There were many many cases of U.S. cadres leading Vietnamese forces in successful defenses of towns against heavy VC/NVA assaults. The problem was that Westmoreland neglected it in favor of "Search & Destroy".
After Abrams replaced Westmoreland, ARVN trained up to the point where it defeated the 1972 NVA invasion with no U.S. ground forces.
But Cronkite and the media had decided the war was lost was after the Tet offensive.
Crusader| 10.23.09 @ 8:47AM
Wow it did? Is that why South Viet Nam is a free and independent constitutional republic now?????
(What was Saigon renamed again?)
And they say the Left are the only ones to revise history. Again. Wow.
Hmmm. Have you ever BEEN to Afghanistan?
Pingback| 10.23.09 @ 2:55PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : In Afghanistan, Are Our … | Afghanistan Today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 10.23.09 @ 2:55PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : In Afghanistan, Are Our … | Afghanistan Today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
UChicago| 11.11.09 @ 3:02PM
Mr. O'Connell obviously hasn't done enough research into Suicide Terrorism (unlike Professor Pape). Pape's analysis doesn't expound on some nonsense theory, rather it finds its basis in empirical evidence. Every single case of suicide terrorism has been linked to perceived Foreign occupation by a democracy. This is a fact. Every single case!
Mr. O'Connell, Robert Pape is the world's foremost expert on Suicide Terrorism. Robert Pape is one of the most prominent Political Scientists and Defense Academics in the United States. The man has top secret clearance; I dare say he knows more about the subject than you do.