By Rep. Jane Harman and Michael O'Hanlon
We believe it is essential that President Obama give this country and the world a clearer sense of how long it will take to draw down American troops in Afghanistan.
The goal here is not to rush for the exits irresponsibly. But nine years into the longest conflict in our nation's history, and a year and a half into the president’s troop surge, voters currently see no end in sight. That is certainly the message many members of Congress (like one of us) hear when visiting with constituents.
Many will object to any attempt at precision in forecasting the future. They will correctly argue that conditions on the ground in Afghanistan must influence any plan. Since those conditions cannot be accurately forecast, any current estimate of the pace of our troop reductions from the current level of about 100,000 will inevitably be proven wrong, or at least in need of revision.
But in this case, we believe that ambiguity is becoming counterproductive. Rather than being soothed by the vagueness of existing presidential statements and public plans about the war, most people here and abroad hear the worst of their fears rather than the best of their hopes.
In the region itself, there are major downsides to the confusion. Yes, ambiguity can help spur some reformists to faster action. But more commonly, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr. Obama's words sound like impending doom—suggesting that the Americans will yet again leave the region prematurely, and making our friends hedge against that possibility.
It is not hard to estimate what the implicit plan for U.S. troop reductions might be. NATO troops will have to make up the difference between the need for security forces (about 400,000 countrywide) and available Afghan troops and police, while also mentoring the latter. By that logic, we would infer that American troops may number around 80,000 at the end of 2011, perhaps 50,000 or a bit more at the end of 2012, and then perhaps still 25,000 a year later, a goal which one of us (Harman) thinks could be accelerated.
Regardless of the speed of the drawdown, no one in the executive branch has offered any comparable specificity. This despite repeated calls for such detail from hundreds of Members of Congress – most recently by 162 House Members (including one of us) who supported the McGovern amendment to the 2010 War Supplemental
Our non-military presence in Afghanistan should not decline. Indeed, it should increase. At $4 billion a year, development and diplomatic efforts are far less expensive than the war effort. That said, they are not necessarily as well conceived or implemented. We still hear too many stories of not only corruption, but U.S. bureaucratic rivalries and waste. In addition, while American businesses stand ready to invest in Afghanistan and to build-up its commercial sector, the U.S. Government isn’t currently capable of paving the way for such investment and assistance through greater use of tools like financial guarantees for private investors.
But to conclude, the central point is this: the president should clarify his plans. Underscoring that we intend no careless troop drawdown can help reassure allies in the region. At home, knowing we can hope for a halving of our troop numbers by the end of 2012 and another halving 12 to 18 months later is much better than the vague sense that this war will last indefinitely. And it will ensure that strained financial resources can be invested in mitigating other urgent security threats to the United States originating from places like Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Maghreb.
Jane Harman represents California's 36th District, which includes Venice, Torrance and and Redondo Beach, in Congress. Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in national security and defense policy.