<div class="gmail_quote">The Washington Post reports that *according to the US government's own assessment*, military escalation has failed in Afghanistan. Yet, the same report tells us that no change is expected in December when the policy is reviewed. How could this be? One explanation would be that the policy is failing according to the Pentagon's *stated* objectives, but succeeding according to the Pentagon's *unstated* objectives. The escalation has failed to degrade the Taliban *militarily*, but is apparently succeeding in degrading the Taliban *politically*: mid-level commanders and footsoldiers the Pentagon is killing are being replaced by younger recruits who are more militant and independent, thus degrading the ability of the Taliban leadership to negotiate a peace deal and enforce the deal on its troops. If the Pentagon's goal were to end the war, this would be dangerously counterproductive; but if the Pentagon's goal is to facilitate a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan, this could be useful, since a peace deal would almost certainly imply a timetable for US military withdrawal.<div>
<br></div><div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/is-the-pentagon-deliberat_b_775353.html</a><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>
Robert Naiman<br>Policy Director<br>Just Foreign Policy<br><a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">www.justforeignpolicy.org</a><br><a href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org" target="_blank">naiman@justforeignpolicy.org</a><br>
<br>
Urge Congress to Support a Timetable for Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan<br><a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern" target="_blank">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/feingold-mcgovern</a><br>
<br></div></div>