Sons of Afghanistan?

by: Chris LeJeune

Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 12:50:24 PM EST

Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan - The Afghan government and the U.S. military have begun a fledgling drive to lure Taliban foot soldiers away from the battlefield by offering them job opportunities and protection, diplomats and military personnel familiar with the initiative say.

Officials hope the plan, which is loosely modeled on the "Sons of Iraq" program that lured Sunni Muslims away from the Iraqi insurgency, could help pave the way for an eventual Western exit from Afghanistan.

Envisioned as a potential centerpiece of the new Karzai administration, the re-integration initiative is conceived as a bottom-up, grass-roots effort, similar to the Iraqi program, which was widely credited with reducing the level of violence there.

Of course, my immediate concern is what happens when the job runs out, they get fired, or the protection leaves?  Karzai has already stated that he wants US troops out and Afghan forces providing security in five years.  Will this reconciliation last at that point?  And in the meantime, can we trust any information that these guys give us?  Can we use them with any confidence in any security operations where American lives will be put at risk?  Or do we just have new enemies with benefits?

I would expect that those who supported the Awakening movements in Iraq will come out in support of this policy as well.  But as General Petraeus has said, Iraq is not Afghanistan.  Also this program is planned as an Afghan-led operation from the beginning with the US, Britain, and NATO forces providing support.

In Iraq, the U.S.-funded Sons of Iraq program got as many as 100,000 Sunni insurgents to stop fighting the U.S., or even take up arms against the group Al Qaeda in Iraq, by forming paramilitary groups. Efforts are underway to move them into state security forces or provide other jobs. U.S. military officers deployed in Afghanistan's south, the Taliban heartland, say they are being encouraged to test similar ideas in the field.

As always, the success of this operation will be dependent on several other factors.  And those in the command positions are already taking this into account.  First and foremost, Afghan forces must understand that we are not providing an open-ended committment.  The US forces will eventually need to leave, and they need to understand that now if progress is to be made.

British Lt. Gen. Graeme Lamb, who arrived in Afghanistan at the end of August to help develop the plan, said a crucial element would be acknowledging that many insurgents believe that the West plans an open-ended occupation of Afghanistan.

"We have an opportunity to reset the conditions," Lamb, former deputy commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, said in an interview at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization force headquarters. The vast majority of Taliban foot soldiers, he said, are "misguided -- they have fought well for a bad cause."

Indeed, Brig. Gen. Mark Martins recently stated that 80-90% of the detainees at Bagram are not Taliban diehards and would probably work with US forces if given the right conditions. Considering that I do not want an open-ended committment in Afghanistan and I do not believe that permanent bases there are in either countries' best interest, I am hoping this operation is successful.  But with many dependancies and many questions unanswered, I will be very cautious before proclaiming any kind of success.  A successful mission is like a safe landing.  One you can walk away from.