9933c3ac18868210VgnVCM100000e56411acRCRDapproved/thenational/Articles/Migration/2009-Q3More than just a plan needed for Afghanistan8933c3ac18868210VgnVCM100000e56411ac____General Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, has released his long-awaited review of the Afghan war strategy, and the conclusions are as expected.<p>The war in Afghanistan is not going well. While this was more than evident from the rising violence and lack of governmental reform, it carries more weight when it comes from the man charged with winning the fight against the Taliban. General Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, has released his long-awaited review of the Afghan war strategy, and the conclusions are as expected, if not even more dire.</p> <p>As an ever-growing number of senior US military commanders and advisers have been saying: the current Afghanistan strategy pays too little attention to the security of reconstruction efforts and the population. Taliban fighters are beaten back from towns and valleys only to return as troops move on to the next fight. This is not a recipe for victory, but for endless war, and neither the Afghans nor the coalition countries have the stomach for a war without an expiration date.</p> <p>In addition to simply protecting civilian lives, Gen McChrystal's plan requires that coalition forces manage to improve them. A combination of an ineffective government in Kabul and insufficient security for reconstruction efforts has boosted the image of the Taliban in the eyes of ordinary Afghans. Building new roads and schools means little if they are merely destroyed by the insurgency and are not properly supported by the central government. The US and its allies cannot match the Taliban if that cycle continues, nor will Afghans continue to welcome these efforts if it means more violence and bloodshed in their towns.</p> <p>While the new strategy being advocated has a proven track record after the so-called "troop surge" in Iraq, it requires an extremely high commitment in terms of money and men to be effective - resources that are becoming increasingly scarce as the war drags on in Afghanistan. The US already has nearly 70,000 troops stationed in the country, and a near equal number from its allies. It is not enough. As it is, US commanders warn that the current offensive in Helmand province has left eastern Afghanistan open to attack from the so-called Haqqani network, the most lethal branch of the Taliban family. There are simply too few soldiers to both fight the Taliban and protect the population.</p> <p>Political will may also become scarce. Even if the White House manages to obtain a greater troop commitment and funding from the US Congress, it will probably need to be tied to demonstrable gains in the war efforts - as it was with the surge in Iraq. Obtaining any new commitments from America's allies, especially those in Europe, is doubtful. The US's strongest partner in Afghanistan, the UK, is struggling with dwindling public support for the war and may be unable to stay in the fight for much longer.</p> <p>Ultimately, success depends on the Afghan government. But with the recent election results pointing towards another term for Hamid Karzai, there is little reason to hope for much help from Kabul. His corrupt and ineffective government has alienated much of the country outside of the capital. Should he be re-elected, the US will have little choice but to work with Mr Karzai despite his many flaws. Gen McChrystal has presented Mr Obama with the blueprint for a long, but probably winnable war, but, as in Iraq, it remains unclear whether Afghan leaders are capable or willing to do what is needed to defeat the insurgency.</p> 84YYOPINION2009090100000020090901000000100ARhttp://adedit.ad.atl.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090901/OPINION/708319920570831992020090901100000000