BIDEN Proposes New Strategy for Success in Afghanistan
January 31, 2008
Washington, DC - At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Afghanistan today, Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) proposed a new strategy for success in Afghanistan, involving 1) establishing security on the ground; 2) improving reconstruction efforts; and 3) getting our counter-narcotics strategy right. Sen. Biden delivered the following statement at today's hearing on Afghanistan:
"As I see it, here's the situation in Afghanistan:
"Security is probably at its lowest ebb since 2001. Much of the country is only nominally under the control of Kabul. U.S. and coalition forces win every pitched battle, but the Taliban still grows stronger day by day.
"Drug-trafficking dominates the national economy, and narco-barons operate with impunity. Reconstruction efforts have failed to bring substantial improvement to the lives of most Afghan citizens, and the slow pace is causing widespread resentment at both the Karzai government and the West.
"And Bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders enjoy safe haven somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
"In fact, this summer, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Terror Threat found that Al Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability."
"The Administration firmly believes that we are about to turn a corner and that we just need to give our policy a chance to work. I am curious as to what that policy is, because it's not clear to me.
"But that's exactly what we've been hearing for the past five years: the tide is always about to turn.
"I sure hope so. But I wouldn't bet on it. If we're not going to hold another hearing on Afghanistan next year, and have another retelling of the same story, we need a significant change in policy now.
"Last month, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen testified to another Congressional committee that Taliban support had tripled over the past two years; in Iraq, he said, "the United States does what it must, while in Afghanistan, the United States does what it can."
"I appreciate the Admiral's honesty. His statement, seems to me, makes abundantly clear why our efforts in Afghanistan always seem to be too little and too late.
"We're not succeeding in Afghanistan, quite simply, because we haven't made success there our priority. What would it take to achieve success in Afghanistan? At a minimum, based on the testimony we've received and talking to many experts and sitting through many classified briefings, it will take more investment and more troops - but it will still be a small fraction of what we have devoted to Iraq.
"We've spent about as much in development aid in Afghanistan over the past five yearsas we spend on the war in Iraq every three weeks.
What could more development aid do? Can it do much without rethinking how the aid is distributed and dealing with corruption? As every military expert to testify before our committee has noted, the battle against the Taliban won't be won with bullets and bombs. It will be won with roads, clinics and schools.
"As General Karl Eickenberry used to say when he was in command of U.S. forces in Afghanistan: "Where the road ends, the Taliban begins."
"What could we have done with a fraction of the military resources we've sent to Iraq? Earlier this month, Secretary Gates announced the deployment of 3,200 additional Marines to Afghanistan. This is welcome news—but does anyone truly believe it be enough to turn the tide?
"What do we need to do to achieve success in Afghanistan? In brief, the same thing we should have been doing all along:
"First, establish security. If we should be surging forces anywhere, it's in Afghanistan, not Iraq. NATO troops and the new Marine deployment are necessary but not sufficient - and we have to focus not just on sending more forces, but on the kinds of forces and equipment we send.
"We need more helicopters, more airlift, more surveillance drones. And we've got to do a better job of training the Afghan police and army. As I read the reports, it's like that old, bad expression, "déjà vu all over again." It reads like the reports on our training efforts in Iraq. The police, especially, are not trusted or liked by the people.
"Second, get moving on reconstruction. We need far more funds—and we need to use them far better. The Afghans are patient, but they're not seeing reconstruction worthy of a superpower. After more than six years and more than six billion dollars, the most we can claim is that life for ordinary Afghans isn't as bad as it was under the Taliban. We've got to aim much, much higher—and deliver much, much more.
"Third, we need to do counter-narcotics right. We should target multimillion-dollar drug kingpins, not the dollar-a-day opium farmers. Someday aerial eradication may have a place—but not until we've got alternate livelihoods set up, and a judicial system capable of taking down the drug barons. Until then, we should focus on the top of the food-chain, not the bottom.
"We have five witnesses today who can explain these issues in detail, with authority and expertise: First, Assistant Secretaries Richard Boucher and David Johnson from the State Department. Then, three outside experts well known to this Committee and widely respected: Gen. James Jones, Amb. Thomas Pickering, and Amb. Richard Holbrooke.
"I believe the war in Afghanistan is winnable - but we are not winning. We need a new strategy for success and I hope that this hearing and the Committee can help produce one."
