NDU Internet Homepage NDU MERLN Home Page
  MERLN Home      About      Digital Collections    Issues at a Glance   Military Policy Awareness Links (MiPALs)      Publications      RSS      White Papers   

Yemen
Libya
Protests in the Middle East
Kyrgyzstan
Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill
H1N1 and Pandemic Influenza
U.S. Relations with the Muslim World
U.S. Grand Strategy for Afghanistan / Pakistan
Piracy off the Coast of Somalia
You are here: MERLN Home > Issues at a Glance > U.S. Grand Strategy for Afghanistan / Pakistan >

 

U.S. Grand Strategy for Afghanistan / Pakistan
Compiled By The National Defense University Library
Updated 26 March 2013

Asia Map from the Washington PostThe United States commenced military operations in Afghanistan in October 2001 in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.  The stated goal was to ensure that al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime were put out of operation and the terrorist scourge was eradicated from Afghanistan.  Almost eight years later, the Taliban is resurgent, al Qaeda supports the insurgency and threatens the U.S. from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border, and there is consensus that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating.  Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama announced that he was evaluating U.S. strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan; in February, he announced that additional U.S. troops would be sent to reinforce U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan.

This Issues at a Glance is focused on U.S. grand strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Featured on this page are U.S. statements announcing the commencement of military operations in 2001, documents from the strategic policy review undertaken by the Obama Administration in 2009, and the December 2009 announcement by President Obama of a troop surge to support the new way forward in Afghanistan.  It includes Congressional hearings dedicated at examining the new U.S. policy in the region, reports from the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service on U.S. strategy, and a comprehensive list of major think tank reports espousing the need for a new policy and recommending a future course of action to achieve successfully U.S. policy goals for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Complete coverage of additional issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan are available in the separate Military Policy Awareness Links (MiPALs) devoted to those countries.

Official U.S. Govermment Statements
U.S. Congressional Hearings
Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service Reports
Research & Analysis

Official U.S. Government Statements

TOP

U.S. Congressional Hearings

TOP

Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service Reports

TOP

Research & Analysis

  • [Nov 10] U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan
    Richard L. Armitage and Samuel R. Berger.  Council on Foreign Relations
    This report assesses the threat environment in the region and evaluates the effectiveness of the Obama Administration's strategy at managing and combating those strategic risks.  The report outlines specific recommendations for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan, acknowledging that although these guidelines are intended to inform policymakers, any victory in Afghanistan is likely to be slim.  The Task Force's report concludes with dissenting viewpoints from a group of experts including former Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and former Commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan General David W. Barno, USA (ret.). 
  • [July 10] Obama's New "Af-Pak" Strategy: Can "Clear, Hold, Build, Transfer" Work?
    C. Christine Fair.  Centre for International Governance Innovation
    Upon taking office, President Obama aimed to put the war in Afghanistan at the forefront of his security agenda following eight years of neglect by a Bush administration preoccupied by the war in Iraq.  The Obama administration spent nearly a year reviewing the situation in Afghanistan and vetting war options amid protracted interagency deliberation and partisan debate.  By the end of 2009, Obama affirmed his administration's commitment to degrading the capabilities of terrorist groups ensconced in Afghanistan and Pakistan and announced that, by the end of July 2011, the US would begin a conditions-based transfer of responsibility to the Afghan government and security forces, enabling the US to diminish military activities in favour of continuing to provide development and economic assistance, plus training for military and civilian personnel.  Thus the counterinsurgency mantra of "clear, hold and build" became, under Obama, "clear, hold, build, and transfer."  This paper evaluates the viability of this aproach in light of the structural challenges to each element and the pressure to deliver results in a short timeframe amid difficult security conditions
  • [May 10] Is a Regional Strategy Viable in Afghanistan?
    Ashley J. Tellis and Aroop Mukharji, eds. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    The Obama Administration has articulated the need for a regional approach to dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan, but do these regional players share the interests that have been posited on their behalf, and is there a reality behind the hope that regional cooperation is the avenue to success in Afghanistan?  Does these key states see their own interested in regard to counterterrorism, governance in Afghanistan, and longer term reconstruction and economic development in such a way that a working consensus among them could in fact be constructed?  This publication draws upon regional experts to answer these questions
  • [March 10] The AfPak Strategy: Reactions in Pakistan
    Karl Fischer.  Afghanistan Analysts Network
    This paper highlights those aspects of the new United States strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan (formerly termed ‘the AfPak Strategy’) that are more relevant for Pakistan and shows predominant Pakistani reactions to these issues. The selection is limited to the responses of government and political leaders, representatives of the military as well as some prominent members of the media and academia. The material also offers some basic conclusions and policy recommendations
  • [Nov 09] Fixing a Failed Strategy in Afghanistan
    Gilles Dorronsoro.  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    The failure of the U.S. and British strategy as demonstrated by the summer 2009 offensive in Helmand province is accelerating the development of two potentially disastrous scenarios in Afghanistan. First, the war is spreading to the North, which had been relatively quiet beforehand. Second, the Afghan government continues to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the population, especially among Pashtuns. As a result, even if the right number of Afghan forces existed, a quick “Afghanization” of the war is not a realistic goal. Given that the Taliban are woven into the fabric of the Pashtun countryside in the South and East and therefore cannot be removed, the current U.S. strategy inevitably involves high casualties for few results. Instead, the International Coalition, with its limited resources and diminishing popular support, should focus on its core interests: preventing the Taliban from retaking Afghan cities, avoiding the risk that al-Qaeda would try to reestablish sanctuaries there, pursue a more aggressive counterinsurgency strategy in the North, and reallocate its civilian aid resources to places where the insurgency is still weak. That way, they can make a difference.
  • [Sep 09] NATO and the New US "Af-Pak" Strategy
    Christopher M. Schnaubelt.  NATO Defense College
    This paper presents an analysis for the Obama Administration's March 2009 strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and its implications for NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission
  • [30 July 09] The Future of Afghanistan and Pakistan: The Development Challenge
    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Transcript of an event featuring Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for International Development, United Kingdom discussing what must be done to align effectively the military, diplomatic, and development efforts of the international community in pursuit of the shared goal of preventing the return of al-Qaida to the bbase from which they launched the September 11 attacks
  • [June 2009] Triage: The Next Twelve Months in Afghanistan and Pakistan
    Andrew M. Exum, et al. Center for a New American Security
    This paper is divided into three parts.  The first section outlines the current situations in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, highlighting trends that threaten the Obama Administration's stated objective of promoting a more capable, accountable, and effective government in Afghanistan and enhancing a stable, civilian-led constitutional government in Pakistan.  The second section provides operational recommendations, seeking to address the most pressing dangers identified in the situation assessments and to further progress toward meeting benchmarks.  The third section focuses on accurate metrics that focus on outcomes
  • [12 May 09] Finding the Right Grand Strategy in Afghanistan
    Following the trilateral summit between Presidents Karzai, Zardari and Obama, the Carnegie Endowment hosted Afghanistan’s ambassador to the United States, Said T. Jawad, Senator Joseph Lieberman, and a panel of leading regional experts to discuss the strategies needed for military success and lasting political stability in Afghanistan, and the challenges facing the international community in Pakistan
    • Transcript of Ambassador Said Jawad's Remarks
    • Transcript of Senator Jospeh Lieberman's Remarks
    • Transcript of Panel Discussion featuring Gilles Dorronsoro, Ali Jalali, Fred Kagan, Ashley J. Tellis, and Alexander Thier
  • [9 April 09] Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Obama: Discussions on the New Strategy
    Atlantic Council of the United States
    Transcript of an event in which the Ambassadors from Afghanistan and Pakistan discuss regional views and reactions to the President's policies
  • [April 09] Reconciling with the Taliban? Toward an Alternative Grand Strategy in Afghanistan
    Ashley J. Tellis.  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Negotiating with the Taliban is the worst possible approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, and one that would fail.  U.S. signals of impatience and a desire for an early exit could motivate insurgents to maintain a hard line and outlast the international coalition.  Though costly, a long-term commitment to building an effective Afghan state is the only way to achieve victory and defend U.S. national security objectives
  • [April 09] A Ten-Year Framework for Afghanistan: Executing the Obama Plan...And Beyond
    Ashraf Ghani.  The Atlantic Council of the United States
    The Obama administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan presented Afghanistan and the region with renewed opportunities for success. The rapid deterioration of security and governance in Afghanistan will force the United States and its allies to focus on urgent and immediate steps to help bring about rapid progress to war-weary publics, particularly before the August 2009 presidential elections in Afghanistan.  However, short-term policies and actions will not be enough to achieve the goals of a self-sustaining, effective, and accountable Afghan government. This report makes the case that for the Obama administration to translate its defined goals and strategy for Afghanistan into achievements on the ground, it must adopt a broad, medium-term framework that responds to the needs and aspirations of the Afghan people
  • [April 09] From AfPak to PakAf: A Response to the New U.S. Strategy for South Asia
    Daniel Markey.  Council on Foreign Relations
    This paper analyzes the Obama administrations policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan and lays out two realistic alternatives.  The author argues that a narrow focus on counterterrorism is insufficient to protect U.S. interests in South Asia and will do little to address the serious, entrenched threats posed by a weak Pakistan.  He advocates a long-term approach that prioritizes engagements with Pakistan and proposes a number of detailed recommendations to implement this strategy
  • [April 09] Back from the Brink?  A Strategy for Stabilizing Afghanistan-Pakistan
    The Asia Society's Afghanistan-Pakistan Task Force
    The Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan are at risk from a combination of violent insurgency, loss of public confidence, and economic crisis. Policies of the previous U.S. administration fell short because objectives were not matched with resources and strategic effort and becuase it did not develop an integrated approach to the two countries and the region.  The time has come to change course dramatically, but incremental challenges alone, such as more troops or more money, will not be sufficient to address monumental challenges.  The U.S. must define far more clearly the objectives that it and its allies and partners can achieve.  This report recommends policies for a comphrehensive strategy that integrates counterterrorism, governance, economic development, and regional objectives to achieve lasting stability in the region
  • [March 09] Sustainable Security in Afghanistan: Crafting and Effective and Responsible Strategy for the Forgotten Front
    Lawrence Korb, Caroline Wadhams, Colin Cookman, and Sean Duggan.  Center for American Progress
    Any strategy to recapture the initiative in Afghanistan must be acutely aware of Afghanistan's long history of fragmentation and armed resistance to outside power who seek to influence its political makeup. The Obama Administration must distinguish between short-term goals to stabilize conditions on the ground in Afghanistan over the next 18 months and sustainable intermediate and long-term goals that will allow the United States and its allies to one day leave Afghanistan as a stable, functioning nation in control of its borders and with a government respected by its people
  • [March 09] Swords and Ploughshares: Sustainable Security in Afghanistan Requires Sweeping U.S. Policy Overhaul
    Reuben E. Brigety II.  Center for American Progress
    The breadth and complexity of the security challenges facing the United States abroad defy solution through the application of military force alone.  The Center for American Progress sponsored a simulation exercise to assess the impact of various foreign assistance reforms on the ability of the U.S. government to stabilize countries in crisis, choosing Afghanistan as the crucible becuase of the immediate need for the U.S. to confront the crisis now confronting policymakers there. This report discusses the results of the exercise, which yielded five major conclusions for foreign assistance reform generally and U.S. policy toward Afghanistan in particular
  • [Feb 09] Afghanistan and Pakistan on the Brink: Framing U.S. Policy Options
    Frederick Barton, Karin von Hippel, Mark Irvine, Thomas Patterson, and Mehlaqa Samdani.  Center for Strategic and International Studies
    Dramatic changes are needed in order to succeed in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This report outlines policy challenges posed by Afghanistan and Pakistan, highlights 18 realistic assumptions that should inform policy, and makes recommendations for policy options
  • [Feb 09] Needed: A Comprehensive U.S. Policy Towards Pakistan
    A Report by the Atlantic Council.  Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, Honorary Co-Chairs
    Afghanistan's deterioration has been accompanied by a worsening economic, political, and security situation in Pakistan, where the stakes are even more dramatic.  A raging militancy and cross-border insurgency on the Afghan-Pakistan border threatens the stability and legitimacy of the fledgling democratic governments in Kabul and Islamabad.  In response to these concerns about Pakistan, the Atlantic Council established a task force in mid-2008 to offer the new U.S. administration suggestions on a fresh policy toward Pakistan and propose an effective, comprehensive approach for future U.S. policy towards Pakistan.  The most compelling message of the report is that time is running out, yet if we act immediately and wisely, the U.S., its allies and partners can still help give Pakistan the ability to turn arounds its economy and stabilize its political system
  • [23 Jan 09] Securing Afghanistan: Getting on Track
    C. Christine Fair and Seth G. Jones.  United States Institute of Peace
    This working paper examines the security environment in Afghanistan, assesses the programs put in place to address these threats, identifies existing gaps, and offers possible solutions
  • [Jan 09] The Future of Afghanistan
    J. Alexander Thier, ed.  United States Institute of Peace
    According to this collection of essays written by some of the world's top South Asia experts, U.S. policy toward Afghanistan will require a fundamental change in order to achieve long-term stability.  Any effort to establish stability through troop increases alone will ignore larger issues and lead to short-term improvements at best.  While recent violence in Afghanistan must be brought under control, the U.S. and the international community must get back to the baics by placing critical focus on rule of law, economic empowerment and the regional context
  • [Nov 08] Partnership for Progress: Advancing a New Strategy for Prosperity and Stability in Pakistan and the Region
    Caroline Wadhams, Brian Katulis, Lawrence Korb, and Colin Cookman.  Center for American Progress
    Pakistan will pose one of the greatest foreign policy challenges for the incoming Obama administration. How Pakistan addresses its militancy, weak governance, and economic difficulties will directly infl uence the security of the United States and its people. The Obama Administration must seize these opportunities and work with Pakistan, its friends, and neighbors to create a new strategy for enhancing security in Pakistan. But first, U.S. policymakers must understand the key challenges facing Pakistan and the region, as well as the critical opportunities the Obama administration can leverage over the next four years
  • [Sep 08] The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan
    A Report of the Pakistan Policy Working Group, United States Institute of Peace
    Pakistan may be the single greatest challenge facing the United States today.  It is suffering its greatest internal crises since partition, with security, economic, and political interests in the balance.  U.S. interests in Pakistan are more threatened now than at any time since the Taliban was driven from Afghanistan in 2001.  The U.S. cannot afford to see Pakistan fail, nor can it ignore the extremists operating in Pakistan's tribal areas.  In the face of this challenge, Washington needs to rethink its approach to Pakistan.  This report makes recommendations for strenthening U.S. policy toward Pakistan, focusing on areas such as Pakistani politics and challenges for U.S. diplomacy, counterterrorism and internal security,regional relationships, and U.S. assistance
  • [March 08] Saving Afghanistan: An Appeal and Plan for Urgent Action
    Atlantic Council of the United States
    The international community is not winning in Afghanistan.  Unless this reality is understood and action is taken promptly, the future of Afghanistan is bleak, with regional and global impact.  The purpose of this paper is to sound the alarm and to propse specific actions that must be taken now if Afghanistan is to succeed in becoming a secure, safe and functioning state
  • [Jan 08] Afghanistan Study Group Report: Revitalizing our Efforts, Rethinking our Strategies
    General James L. Jones, USMC, ret., and Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering.  Center for the Study of the Presidency
    After offering its assessment of the current situation in Afghanistan, the Study Group provides policy recommendations on six critical issues to revitalize the U.S. and international effort in Afghanistan: international coordination; security; governance and the rule of law, counter-narcotics, economic development and reconstruction; and Afghanistan and its neighbors. In addition to the recommendations on these six areas, the Study Group offers three overarching recommendations to bring sharper focus and attention to Afghanistan, within the U.S. government and withint the broader international community
  • [July 07] Rethinking Western Strategies Toward Pakistan: An Action Agenda for the United States and Europe
    Frédéric Grare.  Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Without Pakistan’s active and full cooperation, the United States and the international community cannot reconstruct Afghanistan, defeat the Taliban, and turn the tide of international terrorism.  Yet most observers agree that Pakistan has not provided the fullest possible cooperation.  Debate is growing about whether the Pakistani state is merely unable to do better or is actively undermining international efforts in Afghanistan and against terrorism.  This report makes the case that the Pakistani state bears responsibility for the worsening security situation in Afghanistan, the resurgence of the Taliban, terrorism in Kashmir, and the growth of jihadi ideology and capabilities internationally. At the core of the problem is the Pakistani military, which has dominated Pakistan’s politics since 1958 and has developed over the years a nationalism based more on its own delusions of grandeur rather than on any rational analysis of the country’s national interest. The Pakistan Army has tried to muster solidarity by stoking religiosity, sectarianism, and the promotion of jihad outside its borders.  This report shows that these priorities reflect the specific institutional interests of the military and therefore cannot be fundamentally changed unless the army gradually cedes its political role to representative civilian leaders and limits itself to defending borders. The United States and other international actors vital to Pakistan’s future must stop taking the metaphorical bribe of partial Pakistani cooperation in fighting Al Qaeda terrorists in return for propping up an unrepresentative, military government.  This report calls for a new strategy designed to encourage Pakistan to reestablish the preeminence of civilian government according to the Pakistani constitution.  The key to this strategy is to not allow Pakistan to trade off democratization for the country’s cooperation on terrorism, Afghanistan, and Kashmir. Pakistani progress on these objectives would bring increased international rewards, while its abandonment of a single one of them would expose the Pakistani leadership to the withdrawal of foreign assistance

TOP
Updated on 2013-06-14 15:28:00.0 NDU Security Policy & Privacy Notice Send Comments