Home » Foreign Forces » Dunford: Winning in Afghanistan is ‘Achievable’


Dunford: Winning in Afghanistan is ‘Achievable’

By:

dunfordThe commander of coalition forces described the situation in Afghanistan now as being “in the red zone” of the campaign where “winning is by no means inevitable at this point but it is absolutely achievable.”

U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford — speaking Aug. 8 to the Reserve Officers Association convention in Washington via videotelconference — said he reminds his forces that war is a clash of wills and now was the time as the coalition forces transition to training, advising and assistance roles that they need to show more endurance and more will than their adversaries.
Dunford said the Afghan security forces are capable of providing a secure environment in the country and the necessary security to provide a transparent election. The yes was qualified to the Afghans able to provide security across the country after NATO and collation forces leave in December 2014.

Some aspects of the security apparatus in Afghanistan will need Western assistance.
One example he used later was developing the Afghan Air Force as requiring a coalition presence after December 2014. Dunford said that NATO recognizes this and Germany, Italy, Turkey and the United States have agree to lead transition efforts regionally once agreements are reached with the Afghan government to cover their presence in 2015 and beyond. Exactly what they will do depends on the agreements.

But the Afghan forces have proven themselves in tough situations, such as Logar Province, in driving out the Taliban.

“I wasn’t so optimistic a few years ago,” Dunford said.

Afghans also have noticed the change.

“Ninety-one percent of Afghans have a favorable opinion of the Afghan army, and 80 percent have a favorable opinion of the Afghan police,” he said. Dunford assessed the 352,000 members of the Afghan security forces “increasingly competent, capable and credible.”

He predicted a few more months of “tough negotiations with compromises” over a continued coalition presence as Afghans assert their political sovereignty. At the same time, there is a psychological aspect of the transition inside Afghanistan as the December 2014 date approaches.
Dunford described called the departure as a “Y2K effect” that causes some to look at that date as approaching a cliff. That apprehension shows itself in declining real estate prices and young people trying to leave the country.

From this fall into the spring, he said the campaign plan would assist the Afghan security forces in winning the confidence of the people that security is possible in 2015 and beyond, working with the Ministry of the Interior on the security of the upcoming April presidential election and the government overall in how to sustain a modern army and police force that is capable of keeping up the pressure on the Taliban, related criminal networks and Al Qaeda.

Sixty thousand American service members remain in Afghanistan, about 20 percent come from the reserve components. Dunford said that he understood that Americans were weary of war and “don’t share my optimism” about the Afghan government and security forces, but they needed to remember that is was ‘’in America’s interests” to go into Afghanistan in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and make sure the country did not provide a haven for terrorists to launch new rounds of attacks.

“If the trajectory that we’ve been on for the past couple of years continues for the next 16 months, I am very comfortable about where we will be with the Afghan forces,” he said.

  • GIMPGIMP

    Winning if Afghanistan was achievable 12 years ago with a bombing campaign and SOF supplied by an air bridge and without an occupation.

    Certainly winning now is achievable, depending upon your definition of winning.

    Cutting losses is a good start. Anything that saves American lives and money is a win. We’ve flushed enough money and effort down that toilet. Now winning is leaving.

    This is how not having a plan before going to war beyond “everybody gets a piece of the action” works out.

    • TheTruth

      I modestly agree with your SOF and bombing campaign. This was a different war though. The targets were a corrupt government and a determined following of armed Taliban that was receiving aid from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Unseating the Taliban from power had to come first then defeating them in the mountains had to come next while keeping the neighboring countries from rearming them.

      This was not like Iraq. Their were no MiG’s and T-72′s to neutralize. This was about taking out small companies of insurgents, rebels whatever you want to call them. It seems to me that the Talibans infrastructure was mostly eliminated in the first three months of the war and TLAM’s and JDAM’s are only so productive against soft targets if they split up or take refuge in public places. This is where the SOF would have been effective. But again it was about defeating the ideals of the Taliban and when you become hardened on your ideology, it appears that even the worlds most hardened military can find it difficult to win.