Seven years after coalition forces invaded Afghanistan and drove the Taliban from power, the war slogs on. The initial euphoria from the "victory" has dissipated. Officials are increasingly concerned about the Taliban's resurgence and the durability of the government of President Hamid Karzai. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has recognized the need for a new approach. Its leaders have agreed to begin to target Afghanistan's opium trade, a move that could deprive the Taliban of the funds it uses to finance its forces. Just as important, the coalition now looks set to adopt the lessons of Iraq and reach out to those elements of the opposition with whom they can craft a political reconciliation agreement. There is a long way to go before such a deal can be reached in Kabul, but recognition of the need for such an approach is a critical first step.
In a recent interview about the situation in Afghanistan, British Brig. Gen. Mark Carleton Smith conceded that "We're not going to win this war" and the public should not expect "decisive military victory," a view shared by a French counterpart, Gen. Jean Louis Georgelin, who agreed that "there is no military solution to the Afghan crisis."
Those remarks are more nuanced than they seem. Those men — and plenty of other officials agree with them — are arguing that in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, the military cannot resolve the conflict on its own. Gen. Carleton Smith explained that it would be "unrealistic and probably incredible" to think that coalition forces could eliminate the local armed bands that have plundered the country for centuries. Rather, the objective should be "reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan Army."