Warning Sign

If there's a reason not to abandon efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan too soon, this NYT article provides a clarifying moment:

The fact that American troops are pulling out of southern Afghanistan in the coming months, and handing matters over to NATO peacekeepers, who have repeatedly stated that they are not going to fight terrorists, has given a lift to the insurgents, and increased the fears of Afghans.

General Eikenberry appealed for patience and support. "There has not been enough attention paid to Uruzgan," he said in a speech to the elders of Uruzgan Province gathered at the governor's house in Tirin Kot, the provincial capital. "I think the leaders, the Afghan government and the international community recognize this. There is reform coming and this year you will see it."

The terrorists and Taliban see the US withdrawal as a sign that they do not have the political will to last and see the mission through to completion. Our timeframe is measured in terms of the political calendar. The jihadists and Islamists have a completely different timeframe; one measured in decades. They will simply wait out the US until after the US decides it is time to leave and then move in as soon as practible. They're making inroads in Afghanistan because the US is preparing to reduce its presence, and everyone appears to acknowledge that the troops replacing the US aren't going to go after the terrorists and Taliban to nearly the same degree. That's why there's a resurgence.

However, the resurgence is also due to the fact that the Pakistanis are going after Taliban and al Qaeda in a big way on their side of the border, so they're moving back into Afghanistan to escape the pressure. The trick, however, is for the US and coalition partners to use the Pakistani offensive to clamp down and eliminate the terrorists and Taliban as they stream back into Afghanistan.

Further, one has to seriously question NATO's mission when they say that they're not going to go after terrorsts. Whose idea is it that NATO not go after terrorists. After all, Islamic terrorists have struck at member countries in the past, and plot to do so again. Letting Afghanistan become a place where terrorists can operate freely is a real bad idea.

The Bush Administration must pressure NATO into taking a more proactive role, if only to highlight that it is in the Europeans' self interest to act against the terroists now in these remote parts of the world than trying to contain them on their home soil.

UPDATE:
I'm surprised that more people aren't posting about this particular article and its implications - both in terms of Afghan security, US national security, and the usefulness of NATO in peacekeeping and other military operations. Those that have include: Rich Lowry, Daimnation, Don Singleton, and Stormwarning's Counterterrorism.

Comment is free wonders whether mission creep could be setting in and whether this means that forces may get bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Considering that US forces are still deployed to Europe, Japan, and South Korea following wars, expect long term deployments to make sure that they remain stable regions. Leaving too soon sends precisely the wrong signals, yet that's the kind of thing that the cut and run types want the US to do in Iraq.

Technorati: NATO, taliban, afghanistan, al qaeda, bush, karzai.