Obama’s Afghan strategy is broad

Now that President Obama has announced his new strategy for Afghanistan, you may be focused on the number of new troops that will deploy there: 17,000 on the way, with 4,000 more trainers and advisers to join them by fall.

Before you think “quagmire,” consider what, to my mind, makes this plan so impressive: The troop increase is part of a much broader strategy encompassing the entire South Asia region. It emphasizes economic aid and diplomacy as much as guns.

As Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special representative for AfPak, put it: “The media is talking about a military surge. What Obama is talking about is a comprehensive surge.” The word comprehensive is key.

This approach contrasts sharply with the Bush administration’s narrow take on the Iraq war, which ignored Iraq’s neighbors and permitted al-Qaida and the Taliban to regroup on the AfPak border. Talking with key civilian and military contributors to Obama’s new strategy, key points emerge.

Obama clarifies our purpose in Afghanistan. Many Americans wonder why we should invest more lives and treasure in this remote land. As the president spells out, were the Taliban to retake Afghanistan, that country would once again become a base for al-Qaida and its allies. This would pose a threat not only to us, but to Europe, Asia, and Africa, which have all suffered from al-Qaida attacks.

The increases in U.S. troop levels aim to counter Taliban gains in certain areas of the country, while we train more Afghan soldiers and deal with jihadis in neighboring Pakistan.

Focus in Pakistan

The president recognizes that Pakistan is a crucial part of the problem. Al-Qaida and the Taliban have set up safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies are more focused on fighting their old enemy, India, and are reluctant to cut old ties with the Taliban and some jihadi groups.

The strategy calls for Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, and Holbrooke to meet frequently with the Pakistanis and remind them of the threat the terrorists present to their country. Witness Friday’s terrorist bombing of a Pakistani mosque that killed 50.

U.S. officials will be blunt if they know they are being lied to about continued Pakistani help to the Taliban. If the United States has intelligence on high-level targets in the tribal areas and Pakistan won’t act, we will.

The Afpak focus involves economics and diplomacy as well as military action. Bruce Riedel, the longtime South Asia expert who coordinated Obama’s strategic review, told me: “This is not a minimalist policy. This is a robust effort. It is resourcing the war properly. We know from bitter experience the cost of abandoning Afghanistan.”

Obama will send more U.S. civilian experts out to Afghan provinces to help develop an alternative to the illicit opium economy. He will press international donors to give much, much more. U.S. inspectors general will oversee such aid to avoid a repeat of the vast wasting of U.S. aid in Iraq.

As for Pakistan, the administration endorses the bipartisan Kerry-Lugar bill to authorize $1.5 billion in civilian aid to Pakistan per year for five years to build schools, roads, and hospitals and to strengthen Pakistani democracy.

On the crucial diplomatic piece, the United States, together with the United Nations, will create a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together countries with an interest in avoiding a terrorist takeover of a nuclear Pakistani state. That includes NATO allies, Central Asian states, Iran, Russia, China — and India.

And there is an exit strategy, although not an exit date. The U.S. mission will gradually shift to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces. Ultimately the Afghan army will take the lead in securing its country, even if the West must pay the costs.

X Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.