The New York Times has “dropped a bombshell” and published Ambassador Eikenberry memos opposing Obama’s Afghan surge.
The cables — one four pages, the other three — represent a detailed rebuttal to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who had argued that a rapid infusion of fresh troops was essential to avoid failure in the country.
Eikenberry was deeply concerned about Karzai’s ability to create a viable government that doesn’t require massive foreign support in perpetuity.
And then there’s Pakistan and the Taliban sanctuaries across the border, about which Eikenberry wrote:
More troops won’t end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain. Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain, and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor. There is reason to be encouraged by Pakistan’s current military offensive in Waziristan, but the lasting result of this effort is still unclear. Nor does the Pakistan military action address the role of the Quetta Shura, which has the most influence over the insurgency in southern Taliban strongholds, or the Haqqani network, the most lethal killer of allied troops and Afghan civilians. Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.
(via)