Shift in Afghan Strategy?

[akv]

Barack Obama considers shift in Afghan strategy
President Barack Obama is considering sweeping changes to the US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan with greater emphasis on targeting the worst Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor, Telegraph.co.uk
Published: 7:31PM BST 23 Sep 2009

Senior White House officials have said he may switch his focus from large numbers of American troops on the ground to aerial attacks using unmanned drones.
They are becoming increasingly convinced the focus should be on Pakistan's remote tribal areas close to the Afghan border, where al-Qaeda's 'global headquarters' are believed to be.The comments emerged days after the president's top commander General Stanley McChrystal warned more troops would be necessary to halt growing Taliban influence in Afghanistan.

"Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," Gen McChrystal wrote in a report to Defence Secretary Robert Gates currently being considered by President Obama's advisers.
The opposing views are said to reflect a "war" within the US government over how it should refine its strategy and goals.

There is growing alarm at the number of Nato casualties in Afghanistan and increasing support for drone strikes which have managed to eliminate a number of "high-value" al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan.

Drone attacks have killed key al-Qaeda ally Baitullah Mehsud and the group's Pakistan operations chief Ilyas Kashmiri in recent weeks.
Senior diplomats close to the president's key strategists last night told The Daily Telegraph the US Department of Defence was at loggerheads with the CIA, while the State Department which controls foreign policy remains undecided.

"The Department of Defence wants to win the war, but the CIA is unconvinced it is winnable and wants to revert to counter terrorism. The State Department is stuck in the middle and wants to hold onto some state building objectives [in Afghanistan]," he said.

"The trouble is that al-Qaeda mainly uses Afghanistan not as a base for launching attacks elsewhere but as a 'film set' for staging attacks against western targets and then marketing itself around the world. It makes sense to deprive them of this marketing opportunity – that is shifting to fewer troops as soon as possible."

The regime's quandary is that such a shift would not be possible until the Afghan government's own security forces are strong enough to take over more Nato responsibilities, and its political leadership is able to persuade some 'reconcilable' Taliban factions to abandon their insurgency. Many analysts believe they will not do so while their commanders believe they are winning the war.

One analyst said all "the talk at the moment indicates a shift towards the CIA [and] away from the Department of Defence," but indicated any shift in strategy would be partial and gradual.

1) Does this mean Leon Panetta would lead the war on terror in Afghanistan?

2) If the above is true, isn't a drone strike a taboo CIA assassination?

3) Has any war ever been won solely from the air?

[Utah Bob]

Drones. Yeah that'll work. God help us!

[The Reaper]

Someone has to collect that intel before you can strike targets, especially given the newly restricted ROEs.

Given the recent far-reaching limitations on interrogations, the CIA, intelligence gathering by the other agencies, and the decision that captured terrorists will be treated as criminals with full rights, I would expect that with troop withdrawals, there will be less and less actionable intelligence to base strikes on.

TR

[rubberneck]

Just when we thought we dodged a second Clinton Presidency we end up with the same policies with President Obama. Terrorism isn't a law enforcement issue and tying our troops hands behind their backs out of political expediency is a horrible mistake.

[Richard]

Terrorism isn't a law enforcement issue...

Since when???

Richard's $.02

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by Richard

Since when???

Richard's $.02

Sorry about that I meant to say that terrorism isn't primarily a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement clearly has an important role in fighting terrorism but it shouldn't be to the exclusion of the military like it was in the 1990's.