'Forgotten' Afghan war to forefront
December 3, 2009
Eureka Times Standard
Having served a tour in Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006, Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Allan Dollison was thrilled Tuesday to hear President Barack Obama announce that he would be sending 30,000 more troops to the war-torn region.
”That was the forgotten war,” Dollison said Wednesday, underscoring one tenet of Obama's speech -- that the government took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regain footholds. “I'm thrilled to death to see us resourcing (the war in Afghanistan). Whether it's too little, too late is the question.”
In contrast, many Democratic lawmakers -- including North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson -- were not so thrilled to hear the president's plan, expressing concerns over the $30 billion price tag attached to the troop surge, the probability of success in the country and the prospect of putting more American soldiers in harm's way.
”I'm very skeptical about the president's plan,” Thompson said in a statement. “Even some Afghani officials have warned that more troops will not improve the situation. Moreover, I'm troubled by the amount of money being spent in Afghanistan, without any clear way to pay for the increased cost of additional troops.”
Thompson's statement seems to speak volumes to Democrats' skepticism, as he -- chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Human Analysis and Counterintelligence -- has repeatedly and loudly voiced concerns about the situation in Afghanistan, and the national security threats it poses.
In a May meeting with the Times-Standard's editorial board, Thompson said he was “very worried” about the situation in Afghanistan. He said the Bush administration neglected the war, allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to resurge and find safe harbor in Pakistan -- a nuclear power -- where he said they have become a destabilizing force.
At the time, Obama had just recently granted a military request for some 20,000 more troops to be sent into Afghanistan and defined the United States' mission in the country as disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. During the editorial board meeting, Thompson expressed restrained optimism.
”The Obama plan could work in Afghanistan,” he said. “The concern I have is at what point does our presence there reach a tipping point (and become an occupation).”
Seemingly attempting to quell the fears of occupation, Obama said in his speech that after 18 months he would begin drawing down the surge.
Attempts to reach Thompson to further discuss his concerns -- then and now -- were unsuccessful by the Times-Standard's deadline.
In many respects, Dollison's and Thompson's concerns are similar.
As a Civil Affairs Alfa Team Leader serving with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan from June 2005 to April 2006, Dollison was stationed in the Helmand province of the southwestern part of the country. Dollison said the team his squad was replacing told them it had never been fired upon and that only once in nine months had anyone in the squad raised their weapon in a combat situation.
But, during Dollison's 11 months on the ground there, he said violence steadily escalated, and that his team was ambushed on several occasions and attacked with improvised explosive devices.
”There was this gradual degradation of security,” he said, adding that the area is now considered one of the most violent regions of the country. When Obama approved a standing request for 21,000 additional troops shortly after taking office, Dollison said 9,000 of them were sent to Helmand.
Now, Dollison said, he's heard that a big chunk of the current surge -- a group of Marines -- will also be deployed to that area of the country.
”That's kind of an indication that people think it's really, really serious,” Dollison said, adding that there were only 75 U.S. soldiers in Helmand when he served there and that the border to Pakistan was essentially unmanned.
But it will take more than troops to bring some kind of lasting stability to Afghanistan, Dollison said, noting that “what we are trying to do is enormously challenging.”
Properly training the Afghan military is a major challenge, according to Dollison, who said he anecdotally heard stories of Afghan forces turning and running away when engaged in a fire fight. While there are diverse and rivaling tribal factions in Afghanistan, Dollison said the disputes very rarely result in violence. Even the Taliban -- which Dollison described as oppressive and wretched -- rarely attacks civilian populations. This makes training Afghan soldiers for combat difficult, he said.
”It's very, very hard to teach people that they're going to have to kill their own people,” he said. “It kind of all starts from there.”
Dollison said the real key to stability will be economic and infrastructure gains. Dollison -- who also served in Iraq -- said a major difference in the situation on the ground in both countries is that when the U.S. invaded Iraq, the country had a vast infrastructure and a bountiful stream of revenue coming into the government from the country's vast oil fields.
Afghanistan has none of that.
Dollison said there's simply little legal economic activity in the country, leaving little revenue for government programs and funding.
”We've been paying the Afghan national army,” he said. “They don't even have the ability to pay their own military. When we leave, how will they pay their army?”
Dollison said it might take a commitment of a decade or so to really get the country on firm footing, and questioned if the American public would be willing to foot that bill, both in terms of human and monetary costs.
Wednesday, debate was heating up in Congress over funding the surge for the next 18 months, with some Democrats questioning whether they could vote for the war funding bill that will be needed to make Obama's surge a reality. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there is “serious unrest” among Democrats over the growing cost of the war.
Thompson -- after maintaining that Afghanistan is critical to the stability of the region and the “safety of people worldwide” -- said he's not sure he can vote for the funding bill without an end in sight.
"Before I vote for additional funding for this war, we must make sure that we have a clear exit strategy,” Thompson said in the statement.
Having served a tour in Afghanistan in 2005 and 2006, Humboldt County Deputy District Attorney Allan Dollison was thrilled Tuesday to hear President Barack Obama announce that he would be sending 30,000 more troops to the war-torn region.
”That was the forgotten war,” Dollison said Wednesday, underscoring one tenet of Obama's speech -- that the government took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regain footholds. “I'm thrilled to death to see us resourcing (the war in Afghanistan). Whether it's too little, too late is the question.”
In contrast, many Democratic lawmakers -- including North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson -- were not so thrilled to hear the president's plan, expressing concerns over the $30 billion price tag attached to the troop surge, the probability of success in the country and the prospect of putting more American soldiers in harm's way.
”I'm very skeptical about the president's plan,” Thompson said in a statement. “Even some Afghani officials have warned that more troops will not improve the situation. Moreover, I'm troubled by the amount of money being spent in Afghanistan, without any clear way to pay for the increased cost of additional troops.”
Thompson's statement seems to speak volumes to Democrats' skepticism, as he -- chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Human Analysis and Counterintelligence -- has repeatedly and loudly voiced concerns about the situation in Afghanistan, and the national security threats it poses.
In a May meeting with the Times-Standard's editorial board, Thompson said he was “very worried” about the situation in Afghanistan. He said the Bush administration neglected the war, allowing Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to resurge and find safe harbor in Pakistan -- a nuclear power -- where he said they have become a destabilizing force.
At the time, Obama had just recently granted a military request for some 20,000 more troops to be sent into Afghanistan and defined the United States' mission in the country as disrupting, dismantling and defeating Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies. During the editorial board meeting, Thompson expressed restrained optimism.
”The Obama plan could work in Afghanistan,” he said. “The concern I have is at what point does our presence there reach a tipping point (and become an occupation).”
Seemingly attempting to quell the fears of occupation, Obama said in his speech that after 18 months he would begin drawing down the surge.
Attempts to reach Thompson to further discuss his concerns -- then and now -- were unsuccessful by the Times-Standard's deadline.
In many respects, Dollison's and Thompson's concerns are similar.
As a Civil Affairs Alfa Team Leader serving with the U.S. Army in Afghanistan from June 2005 to April 2006, Dollison was stationed in the Helmand province of the southwestern part of the country. Dollison said the team his squad was replacing told them it had never been fired upon and that only once in nine months had anyone in the squad raised their weapon in a combat situation.
But, during Dollison's 11 months on the ground there, he said violence steadily escalated, and that his team was ambushed on several occasions and attacked with improvised explosive devices.
”There was this gradual degradation of security,” he said, adding that the area is now considered one of the most violent regions of the country. When Obama approved a standing request for 21,000 additional troops shortly after taking office, Dollison said 9,000 of them were sent to Helmand.
Now, Dollison said, he's heard that a big chunk of the current surge -- a group of Marines -- will also be deployed to that area of the country.
”That's kind of an indication that people think it's really, really serious,” Dollison said, adding that there were only 75 U.S. soldiers in Helmand when he served there and that the border to Pakistan was essentially unmanned.
But it will take more than troops to bring some kind of lasting stability to Afghanistan, Dollison said, noting that “what we are trying to do is enormously challenging.”
Properly training the Afghan military is a major challenge, according to Dollison, who said he anecdotally heard stories of Afghan forces turning and running away when engaged in a fire fight. While there are diverse and rivaling tribal factions in Afghanistan, Dollison said the disputes very rarely result in violence. Even the Taliban -- which Dollison described as oppressive and wretched -- rarely attacks civilian populations. This makes training Afghan soldiers for combat difficult, he said.
”It's very, very hard to teach people that they're going to have to kill their own people,” he said. “It kind of all starts from there.”
Dollison said the real key to stability will be economic and infrastructure gains. Dollison -- who also served in Iraq -- said a major difference in the situation on the ground in both countries is that when the U.S. invaded Iraq, the country had a vast infrastructure and a bountiful stream of revenue coming into the government from the country's vast oil fields.
Afghanistan has none of that.
Dollison said there's simply little legal economic activity in the country, leaving little revenue for government programs and funding.
”We've been paying the Afghan national army,” he said. “They don't even have the ability to pay their own military. When we leave, how will they pay their army?”
Dollison said it might take a commitment of a decade or so to really get the country on firm footing, and questioned if the American public would be willing to foot that bill, both in terms of human and monetary costs.
Wednesday, debate was heating up in Congress over funding the surge for the next 18 months, with some Democrats questioning whether they could vote for the war funding bill that will be needed to make Obama's surge a reality. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there is “serious unrest” among Democrats over the growing cost of the war.
Thompson -- after maintaining that Afghanistan is critical to the stability of the region and the “safety of people worldwide” -- said he's not sure he can vote for the funding bill without an end in sight.
"Before I vote for additional funding for this war, we must make sure that we have a clear exit strategy,” Thompson said in the statement.
Issues:Defense