Those sincerely concerned with America’s security should reject utterly the notion that bin Laden’s death will allow us to declare “mission accomplished” and withdraw from the Middle East, and the world.
The current moment of celebration is thus also a moment of great danger. Not only will all al-Qaeda groups seek revenge for bin Laden's death, but the U.S. and its partners around the world can delude themselves that the war is over.But the war will not be over, because the remaining al-Qaeda leaders and their various franchisees around the world continue to seek our destruction.
Targeted strikes are an important tool in our arsenal against terrorists, but they can be only one tool. The very difficulty we encountered in finding Bin Laden should warn us against seeing in such operations a magical, low-cost, small-footprint silver bullet for the problems we face.
There is cause for celebration in the death of a deeply evil man with much blood on his hands and more innocent deaths in his mind, but no cause to waver in our determination to press forward in this conflict against a determined foe.
The current administration plan foresees thousands of American civilians going into Iraq in 2012. Of the many problems with this plan, a few stand out. We have been hearing about "civilian surges" into Iraq and Afghanistan for years, yet the nondefense contributions to such surges have been limited, slow to arrive, and painful to maintain.
Attacking Qaddafi’s military equipment—whether it is threatening civilian populations or not—is an essential next step, but it does not guarantee success for the rebels, still less for the United States.
Our principal recommendation is that the United States and its allies should continue the strategy now being executed, which is the only approach that can secure the vital national security interests in Afghanistan.
Can the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan succeed? We are confident it is possible. But the U.S. and its allies must persuade the Taliban, Pakistan and Afghanistan that we will win.
The United States must condition the continuation of the U.S.-Iraqi relationship as it begins its exit from Iraq on the willingness of the Iraqi leadership to guide their country in the direction of greater stability, inclusivity and effective governance.
Despite recent setbacks, the United States can still succeed in Afghanistan with President Barack Obama's policy, the military’s strategy, and especially General David Petraeus's leadership.
The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would be an extremely destabilizing event in the Middle East, making it more difficult to deter Iran from undertaking conventional and unconventional warfare, including terrorism.
The United States should protect the Iraqi electoral process from anyone seeking to manipulate its outcome.
Progress in Iraq remains fragile and reversible, but the United States and Iraq have the chance to solidify a successful state, so the United States must see the project through.
Reconciliation talks with the Taliban may provide an interval for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but this approach could result in renewed civil war, especially if the local Pashtuns are not taken into consideration.
American presence in Iraq will continue to be vital to achieving a just, accountable, representative government, especially as Iranian leaders actively attempt to undermine the democratic political process that has emerged there since 2008.
Yemen seems to be moving past another opportunity to seek a peaceful resolution to the al Houthi conflict.
The U.S. government must design and implement a new model for dealing with the real and likely danger in Yemen, and fast.
Although the Salah government of Yemen is an unpalatable partner, we must side with it against insurgents if we want its support against al Qaeda.
President Obama has ordered sufficient reinforcements to Afghanistan to execute a war strategy that can succeed. We applaud this decision.
Although there are causes for concern in President Obama's remarks about Afghanistan, his decision to deploy additional troops deserves support.
The president's indecision and delay have increased the challenges we face in Afghanistan. But it remains unnecessary and unwise to accept defeat.
Because military forces not only contribute to improving security, but also improving governance, the increase of troops in Afghanistan is vital to U.S. counterinsurgency strategy.
The delay in White House decision making is protracting and complicating the campaign in Afghanistan.
American policy and strategy discussions should recognize the implications of the Pakistani-Taliban relationship for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.
Pakistan has shown surprising determination and competence in its struggle against one part of the Islamist network. The United States must show similar determination and competence in our struggle against the other.
More than just counterterrorism, counterinsurgency is necessary to defeat al Qaeda.
An assessment of the military situation in Afghanistan.
There are important differences between the current situation in Afghanistan and that in Somalia in 1993, but Somalia remains a cautionary tale.
As we discovered in Iraq, the fastest way to help indigenous forces grow in numbers and competence is to partner U.S. and allied units with them side by side in combat.
The criticisms of Gen. McChrystal and other American generals are unjust; the reality is that America's commanders over the last eight years have consistently given their best professional military advice, making the recommendations they thought would achieve the goals set for them by their political masters.
President Obama has announced his intention to conduct a review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan from first principles before deciding whether or not to accept General Stanley McChrystal's proposed strategy and request for more forces.
AEI Online
October 1, 2009
A report considering how enemy groups and other stakeholders in Afghanistan and Pakistan would respond to several U.S. policy scenarios.
AEI Online
September 21, 2009
This report argues for an addition of 40,000-45,000 U.S. troops in 2010 to the 68,000 American forces that will be there by the end of this year.
An accelerated growth plan for Afghan national forces if very likely to allow coalition forces, including American reinforcements, to begin reducing their footprint without compromising their gains.
Should the United States pursue a counterterrorism or counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan?
Militant Islam can be defeated only by waging a proper counterinsurgency campaign on both sides of the border.
Comparisons between our current efforts in Afghanistan and the Soviet intervention that led to the collapse of the USSR are natural and can be helpful, but only with great care.
It is too soon to know what General Stanley McChrystal might ask for, but any sound strategy to achieve the president's stated goals in Afghanistan will require more forces.
The most important thing to focus on is that we must commit sufficient force in a timely fashion to Afghanistan in support of General McChrystal's strategy in order to achieve decisive effect next year.
It would be extremely strange for any commander to go through the exercise of designing a new strategy and campaign plan without also identifying the forces and other resources that would be needed to execute it.
For the moment, all of America's enemies prefer to fight through unconventional or irregular warfare rather than through traditional force-on-force engagements.
The issues facing Barack Obama and his military commanders in Iraq are fundamentally different from those of 2007 and 2008.
In the "graveyard of empires," we are fighting a war we can win.
The main challenge is to overcome years of chronic neglect in terms of economic development, government services, and above all security.
The champion of the Iraq surge argues that now is no time to go soft on another front.
There are nine principles the Obama administration should follow to achieve success in Afghanistan.
The Iraqi government ensured integrity and security, while Iran and sectarianism were the big losers.
Iraq offers the Obama administration an extraordinary opportunity.
While Americans concentrate on domestic issues, there are real threats to U.S. security that need to be addressed.
A close examination ofObama's pronouncements on foreign affairs suggests the general outlines of his likely foreign policy.
There is still delicate work to be done in Iraq as General Raymond Odierno succeeds General David Petraeus as commander of U.S. and coalition forces.
Thanks to three American senators, China will be pumping Iraqi oil.
Frederick W. Kagan continues his frequent reports on the unfolding situation in the Caucasus.
House Foreign Affairs Committee
September 9, 2008
Russia's military assault on neighboring Georgia marks a fundamental inflection point in international relations.
The United States must reject Russia's attempts to reestablish an empire and instead must support Russia's free, democratic, and sovereign neighbors.
Comparing Russia's current Orwellian rhetoric to the cold war is unfair to the Soviets.
Frederick W. Kagan is preparing frequently updated reports on the unfolding situation in the Caucasus.
Victory means an opportunity to contain Iran and stabilize the Mideast.
Both Senators JohnMcCain andBarack Obama have had a chance to test out the job of commander in chief. Who scored the highest?
Two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, it is time to adjust our military for the post-Cold War world.
Our military system was designed to fight a single powerful enemy--the Soviet Union--and is poorly structured for the kind of wars we are likely to face.
Iraqi leadership is the reason al Qaeda is on the run and Iran is humiliated.
Stretched to its limits, the U.S. military needs 1 million men.
The limitations of America's land forces remain the most fundamental constraint on U.S. military strategy.
Success will be achieved in Iraq whenit is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the war on terror.
The United States needs to continue to support Iraq financially in order to protect her image.
Having failed to force American troops out of Iraq, Congress is now trying to strip them of all the resources they need to win.
There has been a significant amount of progress in Iraq since General Petraeus took over.
AEI Online
April 21, 2008
It would be unwise to accept defeat in Iraq in an effort to fight the supposedly "realer" al Qaeda enemy in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.
The Iraqi government has finally started attacking illegal military groups within the country.
One theme that emergedat the Senate hearings with General David Petraeuswas the need to abandon Iraq in order to deal with the real center of the war on terror in South Asia.
Many Americans believe that accepting defeat in Iraq is better than trying to win, butcontrary to what many believe, the current situation in Iraq is improving.
The accomplishment of some of the established benchmarksin Iraqillustrates the positive progress that has been occurring.
The recent attack by illegal militias in Iraq will provide insight on the response of the Iraqi government and the effectiveness of the police force.
AEI Online
March 24, 2008
The United Statescan achieve its fundamental objectives in Iraq through the establishment of a peaceful, stable, secular, democratic state and a reliable ally in the struggle againstterrorism.
The U.S. military has developed into an effective counterinsurgency force under the leadership of Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.
Great commanders usually come in pairs; in the case of Iraq, Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno can now be added to the list.
AEI Online
February 19, 2008
The United States must develop a more comprehensive strategy to address the manifold challenges Iranian policy in theMiddle East and beyondposes to our interests.
We need to be patient and maintain the security progress in Iraq that clears the way for political progress.
It is time to move beyond reflexive Bush-bashing and antiwar sloganeering and consider our real interests in the Muslim world and how to secure them.
AEI Online
November 20, 2007
The acceptance of the political process is the only legitimate means of resolving internal differences in Iraq.
The United States must think now about feasible military options in Pakistan.
The acceptance of the political process is the only legitimate means of resolving internal differences in Iraq.
America needs to be heartened by our success in Iraq and seize a victory.
AEI Online
October 30, 2007
Now is the time to stop strategic drift and form a U.S. military and security doctrine for the challenges we face.
TheUnited Statescannot stop fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan until it defeats al Qaeda for good.
Anbar's citizens needed protection before they would give their "hearts and minds."
Anbar's citizens needed protection before they would give their "hearts and minds."
The telling difference between General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and their congressional inquisitors, is their seriousness.
Nine months of progress in Iraq.
Legislating a "middle way" is legislating defeat.
Jim Webb's amendment for soldiers would be a nightmare to execute.
BarackObama proposes his plan for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the end of 2009.
We must understand "AQI" if we are to defeat it.
The "Battle of the Generals" is really no battle at all.
What the Jones Report really says aboutthe situationin Iraq.
AEI Online
September 6, 2007
We cannot leave Iraq until basic security has been established.
Measuring failure--or the failures of measuring.
This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
Setting an Iraq pullout date is not the answer.
A review of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate.
We are making progress on Iraq.
The moderates think they've found a "responsible" way out of Iraq; also, what General David Petraeus is learning from past U.S. mistakes in Iraq.
What General David Petraeus is learningfrom past U.S. mistakes in Iraq.
The surge of U.S. troops in Iraq is generating some promising results. While we cannot yet call it a total success, we likewise cannot yet call it a failure.
Al Qaeda is counting on sapping our will and persuading America to choose to lose a war it could win.
Information on Operation Phantom Thunder in Iraq.
Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgents are turning against al Qaeda, and that is not a bad thing.
U.S. politicians must view the situation in Iraq as it really is, avoiding the temptation to formulate quick fixes to a truly complex and long-term problem.
Certain U.S. politicians' attempts to bring back the Iraq Study Group only undermine the war effort.
Someformer al Qaeda allies in Iraq are turning against the terror group.
The New York Times wrongly judges the plan and the commanders who are executing it.
Mixed messages from the president's advisers and cabinet undermine the efforts of our commanders in the field.
A detailed explanation and analysis of the Iraq Study Group's seventy-nine recommendations.
To win the War on Terror, the United States must win in Iraq. Leaving now would mark the loss of our credibility in the Middle East.
We can--and must--choose victory in the Iraq war.
There is reason to believe that a "Plan B" in Iraq will focus on exploiting the success of the current surge rather than on mitigating a failure.
Painful and uncertain as it is, the wisest course of action to follow in Iraq now is to support our commander-in-chief, soldiers, and civilians.
AEI Online
April 27, 2007
We have made significant progress recently in the war in Iraq. It would be a mistake to cut back forces now.
The Democrats are wrong when theyinsist both that the Iraq war is lost and that setting timelines is the best way to achieve a political settlement.
AEI Online
April 25, 2007
Winning in Iraq will require investments in economic development, infrastructure, security, and legitimacy--all crucial signs of an American victory there.
We can afford to do what is needed to protect our security and global interests. And we must.
We have gotten into a bad habit of believing that the outcome of every war is predictable, but the truth is that the outcome of most wars remains in doubt until they are very nearly over.
Violence is up in the Baghdad belts because U.S. and Iraqi forces have been aggressively attacking al Qaeda bases in those areas.
The Democratic Congress does notunderstand what is going on in Iraq.
The number of soldiers in the U.S. Army, both active and reserve, will continue to be a critical determinant of America's ability to win future wars and, above all, the peaces that follow them.
Members of Congress should ask themselves, "What can we do to help General Petraeus succeed?"
What is the best plan of attack--or lack thereof--regarding Iraq?
AEI Online
January 5, 2007
The United States can and must achieve victory in Iraq through a substantial and sustained surge of troops to stabilize the security situation and increased reconstruction aid.
It is tempting to imagine that greater use of Iraqi forces could reduce the number of U.S. troops needed in Iraq. The temptation must be resisted.
A decisive moment in world history is at hand. If the United States, Britain and their allies fail in Iraq the result will almost certainly be a regional maelstrom.
Without a strategic influx of troops, we will lose the Iraq war.
The Iraq Study Group failed the big test: finding a way to quell the violence.
The persistence of myths forecloses serious consideration of the only option likely to bring peace to Iraq.
More American troops are needed to break the cycle of violence in Iraq.
AEI Online
November 20, 2006
The United States has two options in Iraq: stay and try to win, or cut, run, and lose.
The Democratic takeover of Congress has predictably led to a rise in calls for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
The United States has two options in Iraq: stay and try to win, or cut, run, and lose. Attempts to chart a middle course ignore the realities of the military situation.
Donald Rumsfeld had the chance to be one of the great American heroes of all time.
It's been coming for a long time: the idea that fixing Iraq is the Iraqis' problem, not ours--that we've done all we can and now it's up to them.
AEI Online
October 16, 2006
Conventionalmilitary power, neglected by the Bush administation,should remainfundamental in American defense policy.
There are not enough ground forces in Iraq, and military officers are finally saying so in public.
Congress must increase the strength of the services and improve economic incentives for enlistment.
Is the moment coming when we must redefine success in Iraq or even abandon the struggle as a lost cause?
War is fundamentally a human activity, and attempts to remove humans from its center--as recent trends and current programs do--are likely to lead to disaster.
It is both unfortunate and dangerous that so little serious operational military history is being written and taught in the United States today.
The quickest and only path to responsible troop withdrawals is visible progress toward victory over the insurgency and security in Iraq.
Security is the single most serious problem in Iraq today, yet coalition forces have not stepped in to fill the security gap.
Why attacks on outspoken military generals aremisguided.
Iraq can be saved from civil war--if the United States keeps its nerve.
AEI Online
February 24, 2006
A number of myths regarding American policy and strategy in Iraq have distorted understanding and confused discussion.
The Pentagon released its Quadrennial Defense Review on February 6 reflecting a concerted effort to return to its pre-9/11 course.
America has an obligation to remain in Iraq until it has helped establish a peaceful, stable democracy there.
Has the American withdrawal from Iraq begun?
How can we know if we're succeding in Iraq? What are our information sources?
AEI Online
December 27, 2005
The United States can be victorious in Iraq if we clear and hold the Sunni Triangle, integrate Iraqi soldiers into the fight, and do not lose the political will to defeat the insurgency.
Continued U.S. military engagement is needed for success in Iraq--success that seems now to be closer than it has ever been--if we hold fast to the new, sound strategy for victory.
By comparing Iraq to Vietnam, many people are expressing the fear that because America lost one and because of certain superficial similarities, the U.S. is on the road to losing the other.
AEI Online
November 16, 2005
Al Qaeda's ideology, strategy, and the strategic debates occuring within the organization are similar to those of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism at various periods.
For democracy to thrive in Iraq, the Sunnis must know they are defeated.
Security in Iraq is not as simple as decreasing our troops and increasing theirs.
AEI Online
August 12, 2005
Assuming that American armed forces will make perfect decisions and that the enemy will never surprise us has led to the elimination of reserves from all echelons of the miltiary structure.
Wilson Quarterly
August 9, 2005
Diplomacy is not the opposite of war, and war is not the failure of diplomacy. Both are policy tools required in various proportions in almost any serious foreign-policy situation.
Los Angeles Times
August 8, 2005
There is good news on the military front. But if we pull our troops out too early, we risk creating a stronger, more threatening insurgency.
EMAIL
PRINT
SAVE
