Wikileaks Part II: Eikenberry
Edward Kenney
Afghanistan Study Group Blogger
Recently, Wikileaks has shed some light onto Ambassador Eikenberry’s role as impartial judge of the current U.S. strategy. Eikenberry demonstrates surprising independence and strong judgment in several of the leaked cables. In a cable from last June, the ambassador captures the crux of the governance problem in Afghanistan asking, “What does it take to break out of the cycle of ‘clear and clear again’ to achieve sustained success in an area of persistent insurgency?”
Even Eikenberry recognizes that the current strategy, which does not address the eroded governmental institutions, will only achieve temporary security gains. His description of the lack of governance in Alasay is sad, but not surprising to anyone who has followed the Afghanistan War over the years:
Unfortunately, the GIRoA’s own corroded governance casts a shadow over Alasay and the rest of Southern Kapisa. If the provincial level justice system lacks integrity, in Alasay it barely exists at all…The provincial governor has been to Alasay only once since March. His agenda is to assiduously favor his HIG political associates there, and it did not take long for allegations of corruption to surface. It is not clear what effect the presidential and provincial council elections on August 20 will have on these issues of legitimacy in Southern Kapisa.
Eikenberry concludes by writing that governance, not military success, will be the key to success in Afghanistan.
No matter how effective military performance may be, the insurgents will readily fill any vacuums of governance, and without political competence, lasting COIN success in Alasay will remain one more operation away.
This cable and others like it show a sophisticated understanding of the problem in Afghanistan by our top diplomat there. The Obama administration clearly has the knowledge it needs to adequately assess the Afghan strategy. What’s missing is a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis comparing the time, money and lives needed to establish governance to the potential national security risks should the U.S. opt for a different strategy.
