Adam Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay
Fixing a Failed Strategy in Afghanistan
To correct a failing strategy in Afghanistan, the United States and its allies need to focus on protecting Afghan cities and reallocating more resources to the North.
As the debate on future U.S. strategy draws to a close, the war in Afghanistan is spreading to the North (an area that had previously been relatively quiet), the balance of power in Afghanistan has shifted in the Taliban’s favor, and the Afghan government continues to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the population and international community. In order to correct a failing strategy, the United States and its allies need to protect cities and reallocate more resources to the North.
Gilles Dorronsoro explains that more troops alone will not fix a flawed approach and details what a new, successful U.S. strategy should look like:
- Secure key cities and roads: If a state can be rebuilt in Afghanistan it will start in the cities, so less energy should be focused on the Pashtun countryside. This approach will decrease Coalition casualties and increase local participation.
- Redistribute Coalition troops: Troops are heavily deployed in the South and East where the prospects for success are low. They should be refocused on the North, where the Taliban can be stopped.
- Redistribute development aid: Development dollars are currently being directed most heavily to areas where Coalition control is weakest. These scarce resources should instead be focused on the more peaceful districts of Afghanistan.
- Build an Afghan partner: Increase the size and capabilities of the Afghan National Army, but understand that this will not happen overnight. An Afghan army of 150,000 by 2015 is a realistic and achievable goal.
“The Coalition badly needs a success in the next few months to counter the widely held perception that defeat is the likely outcome,” concludes Dorronsoro. “The current strategy could very well fail and result in yet another demand for reinforcements next year. A vigorous debate―more about strategy than resources―is needed.”
About the Author
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Dorronsoro’s research focuses on security and political development in Afghanistan. He was a professor of political science at the Sorbonne in Paris and the Institute of Political Studies of Rennes.
- Building a Syrian State in a Time of Civil WarPaper
- Waiting for the Taliban in AfghanistanPaper
Gilles Dorronsoro
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- The Mecca Pact and the Limits of American GuaranteesCommentary
Why Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are joining forces on regional security.
Alper Coşkun, Amr Hamzawy
- The Future of Russian-European Relations Is BleakCommentary
The truth of the strategic situation is that Europe and Russia are extremely unlikely to be able to “turn the page” on their confrontation within the next two decades.
Arkady Moshes
- As Rubio Lands in India, the U.S.-India Relationship Is Stronger Than It LooksCommentary
Despite public disputes over trade and immigration, the strategic partnership’s foundations remain sturdy.
Sameer Lalwani
- Why the Pentagon Was So Spooked About the B–1 Bombers in EnglandCommentary
It signals a new era of tech diffusion and warfare.
Steve Feldstein
- Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a France Problem?Commentary
With its public finances in shambles, the far right polling at 35 percent ahead of the 2027 presidential election, and a growing protest movement, is France’s crisis a threat to the EU’s geopolitical awakening?
Rym Momtaz, ed.