January 22, 2009

Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan)

By John A. Nagl, Nathaniel C. Fick and Vikram J. Singh

January 2009 - In 2009, the Obama administration will attempt to deliver on campaign promises to change the Afghan war’s trajectory. In April, the Strasbourg NATO summit will determine the alliance’s role in shaping the future of the country and the region. By the fall, Afghans will have voted for their president for only the second time since 2001, an event which may irrevocably set the country’s course. By the end of this summer’s fighting season, the war in Afghanistan will not yet be won, but it could well be lost.

After seven years and the deaths of more than a thousand American and coalition troops, there is still no consensus on whether the future of Afghanistan matters to the United States and Europe, or on what can realistically be achieved there. Afghanistan does matter. A stable Afghanistan is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and to further stability in South and Central Asia. Understanding the war in Afghanistan, maintaining domestic and international support for it, and prosecuting it well requires three things: a clear articulation of U.S. interests in Afghanistan, a concise definition of what the coalition seeks to achieve there, and a detailed strategy to guide the effort.

U.S. interests in Afghanistan may be summarized as “two no’s”: there must be no sanctuary for terrorists with global reach in Afghanistan, and there must be no broader regional meltdown. Securing these objectives requires helping the Afghans to build a sustainable system of governance that can adequately ensure security for the Afghan people—the “yes” upon which a successful exit strategy depends.

 

Authors

  • John A. Nagl

    CNAS Board of Advisor, Headmaster, The Haverford School

    Dr. John Nagl is the ninth Headmaster of The Haverford School in Haverford, Pennsylvania and a member of the Board of Advisors at the Center for a New American Security. He wa...

  • Nathaniel C. Fick

    Member, CNAS Board of Directors, General Manager, Security at Elastic

    Nate Fick leads Elastic's information security business as the General Manager of Elastic Security. Previously, he was CEO of Endgame from 2012 through its acquisition by Elas...

  • Vikram J. Singh

  • Commentary
    • The Hill
    • November 20, 2019
    A fresh approach to peace in Afghanistan

    An effective peace process is possible and desirable in Afghanistan. Success, however, will require a careful, step-by-step course to test bona fides, build confidence, reduce...

    By Earl Anthony Wayne & Christopher D. Kolenda

  • Commentary
    • The Washington Post
    • November 14, 2019
    Trump was right to abandon the Taliban peace deal. Here’s what a good one would look like.

    Two months after President Trump declared U.S.-Taliban peace talks “dead,” diplomacy with the Afghan insurgents is reviving. With the administration already having negotiated ...

    By David H. Petraeus & Vance Serchuk

  • Commentary
    • Defense One
    • September 17, 2019
    The U.S. Military is Not, and Can Never Be, Afghanistan’s Police

    In 1829, the father of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, established “Peel’s Principles” to describe the role of police at large. Almost 200 years later, policing has changed ...

    By COL Sarah Albrycht

  • Podcast
    • September 10, 2019
    Ending the war in Afghanistan

    Christopher D. Kolenda joins The World and Everything in It to discuss the latest developments in talks between the United States and the Taliban. Listen to the full conversa...

    By Christopher D. Kolenda

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia