U.S.
Intelligence
Reports Cast
Doubt on
Afghanistan
War
WASHINGTON &
SANTA FE
(By
Ken Dilanian and
David S.
Cloud, Los
Angeles
Times)
December
15, 2010
―
The
assessments
contradict
defense
officials'
optimistic
outlook.
They contend
large swaths
of the
country
remain at
risk of
falling to
the Taliban
and Pakistan
is still
supporting
militants.
Two new
assessments
by the
U.S.
intelligence
community
present
a gloomy
picture
of the
Afghanistan
war,
contradicting
a more
upbeat
view
expressed
by
military
officials
as the
White
House
prepares
to
release
a
progress
report
on the
9-year-old
conflict.
The
classified
intelligence
reports
contend
large
swaths
of
Afghanistan
are
still at
risk of
falling
to the
Taliban,
according
to
officials
who were
briefed
on the
National
Intelligence
Estimates
on
Afghanistan
and
Pakistan,
which
represent
the
collective
view of
more
than a
dozen
intelligence
agencies.
The
reports,
the
subject
of a
recent
closed
hearing
by the
Senate
Intelligence
Committee,
also say
Pakistan's
government
remains
unwilling
to stop
its
covert
support
for
members
of the
Afghan
Taliban
who
mount
attacks
against
U.S.
troops
from the
tribal
areas of
the
neighboring
nation.
The
officials
declined
to be
named
because
they
were
discussing
classified
data.
The
intelligence
community's
analysis
contrasts
sharply
with
remarks
last
week by
Defense
Secretary
Robert
M.
Gates,
who said
after
visiting
the
region
he
is
convinced
the
administration's
strategy
is
turning
around
the
Afghanistan
war.
On
Tuesday,
military
officers
hotly
contested
the
intelligence
estimates,
saying
they are
"dated"
because
the
review
period
ended in
September,
as the
last of
additional
American
forces
were
arriving
in
Afghanistan.
The
defense
officials
said the
assessments
did not
reflect
recent
gains.
"You are
missing
at least
2 1/2
months
of
intensive
operations
with the
full
complement
of surge
forces,"
said a
senior
defense
official,
who
added
intelligence
analysts
lack the
"proximity
and
perspective
our
forces
have who
are on
the
ground
living
this
every
single
day."
A senior
intelligence
official
countered
that
claim,
saying,
"The
notion
intelligence
officers
aren't
on the
ground
in
Afghanistan
and on
the
front
lines in
the
fight
against
terrorism
is
preposterous.
Our
people
are
working
side by
side
with the
United
States
military
and our
foreign
partners
to
thwart
our
common
enemies."
National
Intelligence
Estimates
make use
of
analysis
and
information
from all
the
intelligence
agencies,
including
those
that are
part of
the
Pentagon.
The
contrasting
assessments
illustrate
the
difficulty
in
making
accurate
predictions
or
gauging
progress
in
Afghanistan.
High-profile
military
operations
in
southern
Afghanistan
this
year
have
gone
much
slower
than
initially
expected.
Military
officials
have
said
a
key
measure
of the
Taliban's
strength
will
become
clear
only in
the
spring,
when the
traditional
winter
lull in
fighting
comes to
an end.
President
Obama on
Tuesday
signed
off on a
draft of
the
White
House
progress
report
after
meeting
with his
top
security
advisors,
Press
Secretary
Robert
Gibbs
said.
The
White
House
review,
to be
released
Thursday,
will say
"there
has been
some
important
progress
in
halting
the
momentum
of the
Taliban
in
Afghanistan,"
Gibbs
said,
and
"we've
seen
greater
cooperation
over the
course
of the
past 18
months
with the
Pakistani
government."
It also
will
point to
problems,
including
"the
ongoing
challenge
and
threat
of safe
havens
in
Pakistan,"
he said.
Obama,
who sent
30,000
additional
troops
to
support
his
counterinsurgency
strategy
in
Afghanistan,
has
pledged
military
withdrawals
would
start in
July
2011,
contingent
on
conditions
there.
But
Obama
told
members
of the
North
Atlantic
Treaty
Organization
last
month
2014 is
the date
by which
the U.S.
hopes to
cede
full
control
to
Afghan
forces,
an
indication
any
2011
drawdown
is
likely
to be
small.
The
latter
announcement
was
meant in
part to
emphasize
to
Pakistan
the
U.S.
intended
to
remain
heavily
engaged
in the
region,
increasing
pressure
on the
South
Asian
nation
to cut
its ties
to
Afghan
Islamist
insurgents,
one U.S.
official
said.
It's
unclear
to what
extent
the
intelligence
estimates
examined
the
effect
of the
CIA's
increased
use of
Predator
drone
strikes
against
militants
in
Pakistan's
tribal
areas
the main
tool at
American
disposal
in a
country
largely
off
limits
to U.S.
troops.
But in
concluding
the
Taliban
sanctuaries
in those
areas
remain
intact,
the
reports
suggest
drone
strikes
have not
been
sufficient
to stop
militants
from
staging
attacks
against
NATO
forces.
A U.S.
official
regularly
briefed
on the
program
maintained
CIA
operations
in
Pakistan
a
euphemism
for
drone
strikes
have
greatly
degraded
militant
havens
over the
last two
years.
"They're
making a
hell of
a
difference"
and
"have
saved
numerous
American
lives,"
he said.
The CIA
has
primary
responsibility
for
counter-terrorism
operations
in
Pakistan,
with
technical
and
human
resources
that
afford a
continual
stream
of
information
about
events
there.
Military
commanders
acknowledge
a
failure
to
destroy
the
Taliban's
sanctuary
in
Pakistan
could
further
delay
the
success
of the
Obama
strategy.
The
intelligence
estimates
conclude
Pakistan
is
unwilling
and
unable
to stop
harboring
and
supporting
the
Taliban,
one U.S.
official
said.
Pakistan,
which is
due to
receive
$7.5
billion
in U.S.
civilian
aid over
three
years,
denies
secretly
backing
the
Taliban.
However,
intelligence
gathered
by the
U.S.
continues
to
suggest
elements
of
Pakistan's
security
services
arm,
train
and fund
extremist
militants,
according
to
military
and
State
Department
documents
disclosed
this
year by WikiLeaks.
Unless
the
Taliban
sanctuaries
in
Pakistan
are
closed,
"it's
going to
take a
lot
longer"
to
achieve
stability
and hand
over
security
responsibilities
to
Afghan
troops,
Army
Maj.
Gen.
John C.
Campbell,
the
senior
commander
in
eastern
Afghanistan,
told
reporters
last
week.
Campbell
has been
planning
to close
some of
the
remaining
U.S.
outposts
near the
Afghan-Pakistani
border
and
consolidate
his
forces
in areas
where
more
Afghans
live, in
keeping
with the
U.S.
strategy
of
protecting
the
population.
But
senior
commanders
are wary
about
decreasing
the U.S.
presence
near the
border,
for fear
it
would
give
insurgents
an even
larger
sanctuary,
officials
said.
Army
Gen.
David H.
Petraeus,
the top
NATO
commander,
is
especially
worried
U.S.
gains in
stabilizing
southern
Afghanistan
will be
at risk
next
year
unless
there is
progress
in
curtailing
the
Taliban
presence
in and
around
the city
of
Quetta,
in
Pakistan's
Baluchistan
province,
several
U.S.
military
officers
said.
The
Pakistani
army has
troops
in
Baluchistan
but has
conducted
no major
combat
operations
there.
A senior
U.S.
military
official
said he
remains
hopeful
Pakistan
will
move
against
Taliban
sanctuaries.
At some
point,
the
officer
said,
"the
Pakistan
government
will
find it
difficult
to
protect
or
ignore
the
snakes
who they
believe
will
only
bite the
neighbor's
kids,
and
realize
these
same
snakes
are part
of the
larger
problem
of an
existential
threat
to their
homeland."
Last
year
Pakistan's
army
retook
the Swat
Valley,
a region
that had
fallen
to
militants.
But the
army has
not
moved
into
North
Waziristan,
the
tribal
area
used by
many
insurgents
to mount
cross-border
attacks
in
Afghanistan.
Petraeus
told
reporters
last
week
Gen. Ashfaq
Kayani,
the
Pakistani
army's
chief of
staff,
promised
recently
to
conduct
operations
in North
Waziristan.
Petraeus
acknowledged,
though,
Kayani
said he
would do
so "when
the
timing
is right
for
Pakistani
forces."
The area
is a
stronghold
for the
Haqqani
network,
an
Afghan
insurgent
group
that has
stepped
up
attacks
across
the
border
over the
last
year.
The
group,
named
for its
leader,
Jalaluddin
Haqqani,
has been
the
frequent
target
of CIA
drone
strikes
in
recent
months.
Privately,
a senior
military
official
acknowledged
"there
are no
guarantees
as to
how
Pakistan
will
ultimately
address
the
sanctuary
problem."
Key
members
of
Congress
are
watching
the
Obama
strategy
warily.
"Our
political
and
diplomatic
efforts
are not
in line
with our
military
efforts,"
said
Rep.
Mike
Rogers
(R-Mich.),
who is
under
consideration
as the
next
chairman
of the
House
Intelligence
Committee.
"It may
be time
to
consider
a
smaller
troop
footprint."
Sen. Bob
Casey
(D-Pa.),
a member
of the
Foreign
Relations
Committee,
has not
reached
that
conclusion
but
said,
"From my
point of
view,
we've
got lots
of
unanswered
questions
in all
three
areas:
security,
governance
and
development."