@newspaperarticle {67341,
	title = {In Afghanistan, Kerry Keeps US Goals Modest},
	year = {2009},
	month = {Nov 4, 2009},
	publisher = {Boston Globe},
	abstract = {PRESIDENT OBAMA confronts the most fateful foreign policy decision
so far of his administration. Rapidly deteriorating security in
Afghanistan, the post-election political crisis in Kabul, highlighted
by Abdullah Abdullah{\textquoteright}s decision to drop out of the runoff vote, and
General Stanley McChrystal{\textquoteright}s request for 44,000 troops rightly spurred
Obama to call a timeout for reflection. Over the past eight weeks, in a
process with little precedent in American presidential decision-making,
the president and his advisers have held more than a half-dozen
no-holds-barred seminars examining and reexamining every dimension of
this challenge.Reduced to a single bottom line, Obama must decide whether to accept
the recommendation of his chosen military commander in the field to
Americanize this war. McChrystal{\textquoteright}s call for more troops would expand US
forces in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 in order to execute what he
terms a {\textquotedblleft}classic counterinsurgency campaign.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, delivered a major speech last week summarizing his
own analysis of the issue and offering advice about the president{\textquoteright}s
choices. The judgments are nuanced, but no more so than the realities.On the bottom line question - yes or no on McChrystal{\textquoteright}s
request{\textemdash}Kerry says no. He argues that McChrystal reaches {\textquotedblleft}too far, too
fast.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} Kerry recommends that further troop increases must meet three
conditions: reliable Afghan troops to partner with American forces,
local political leaders, and civilian advisers to speed development.
Truth be told, none of these three will be in place soon.Kerry{\textquoteright}s analysis begins with the most important consideration: US
national interests. What should Americans care about here? What matters
more than other things that matter? Kerry says: Pakistan{\textemdash}not
Afghanistan. His focal question about Afghanistan is how developments
there impact Pakistan. Over the past months he has led efforts to
spotlight the anomaly that allocates 30 times more American time and
resources to Afghanistan when our much larger interests lie in
Pakistan. Thanks to his efforts with Senator Richard Lugar, the United
States has committed $7{\textonehalf} billion over five years to help stabilize this
nuclear-armed nation at risk of becoming the {\textquotedblleft}epicenter of extremism in
the world.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright}Second, what are America{\textquoteright}s vital interests in Afghanistan? Kerry
answers that it is to {\textquotedblleft}prevent the Taliban{\textemdash}with their long-standing
ties to Al Qaeda{\textemdash}from once again providing terrorists with an
unfettered Afghan safe haven.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} Period. Note what this sparse summary
does not include: nation-building of a stable centrally-governed
Afghanistan. Like all Americans, Kerry applauds the progress
Afghanistan has made in becoming more democratic, expanding rights for
women, building schools. None of these, however, is included in his
minimum essentials for success.Third, he defines success as {\textquotedblleft}the ability to empower and transfer
responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a
sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an
Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} He
does not say an Afghanistan in which some Taliban are not ruling in
some areas.Fourth, he rejects {\textquotedblleft}all-in{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} counterinsurgency. In its place he
recommends {\textquotedblleft}smart counterinsurgency,{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} the crux of which is {\textquotedblleft}limited
geographic area{\textellipsis}as narrowly focused as possible.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} Counterinsurgency{\textquoteright}s
central objective is to {\textquotedblleft}foster development of effective governance by
a legitimate government.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} In contrast, the strategy Kerry recommends
could be achieved by {\textquotedblleft}good enough{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} stability in Kabul and the major
population centers of a minimalist state cooperative enough to rent
bases and supply lines, provide an operating environment for attacks
against Al Qaeda, and assist with intelligence gathering.Kerry{\textquoteright} advances the argument by distinguishing between the vivid and
the vital, lowering ambitions to {\textquotedblleft}what is achievable, measured against
the legitimate interests of the United States{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} and outlining a
strategy to that end. It is a speech that the president should, and no
doubt will, examine closely.Graham Allison is director of the Belfer Center for Science and
International Affairs at Harvard{\textquoteright}s John F. Kennedy School of Government
and author of {\textquotedblleft}Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable
Catastrophe.{\textquoteright}{\textquoteright} },
	url = {http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/11/04/in_afghanistan_kerry_keeps_us_goals_modest/},
	author = {Allison, Graham T., Jr.}
}
