Afghanistan and Other Conflicts

The NYT is reporting on Defense Secretary Robert Gates's visit to Afghanistan, where he is conferring with General David McKiernan on troop levels necessary to contain a growing insurgency. Announced increases included another 20,000 US troops to supplement the approximately 65,000 US and NATO soldiers currently in country, with as many as two brigades arriving by the spring, when violence typically picks back up after the relatively quiet winter months. McKiernan and his predecessors have asked repeatedly for more troops; current levels are sufficient to fight insurgents but not enough to hold the ground which has been won, and heavy reliance on air strikes has led to a steady stream of civilian casualties which, in combination with a corrupt and ineffective national government, have severely eroded the faith of the Afghan people in the current situation. Gate's visit seemed to reflect this sense of discouragement:

"What was striking about the trip was the tone of weariness that cropped up in the remarks of both Mr. Gates and General McKiernan about the Afghan war. “Let’s put it in historical perspective — this country has been at war for the last 30 years,” General McKiernan told reporters, using the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 as the starting point. “Thirty years. That’s not going to stop overnight. So if your question is might it get worse before it gets better, the answer is yes, it might.”"

Meanwhile, President-elect Obama is meeting with a commission led by former Secretaries of State James Baker and Warren Christopher to consider amending the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires Congressional approval of military operations but has, in general, neither been observed by presidents nor enforced by Congress. Proposed changes would grant to the president de jure most of the powers he or she currently enjoys de facto, while boosting the requirement for consultation:

"A president would have to consult with Congress before any “significant military action” expected to last more than a week or within three days of the start of action in circumstances where secrecy is paramount. This would not include short-term missions such as protection of United States embassies, reprisals against terrorist attacks or covert operations.

Within 30 days, Congress would vote on a measure approving the military action. If the resolution to approve fails in either house, any member could then introduce a measure to disapprove, which would be voted on within five days. If passed by both houses, it could still be vetoed by the president, so as a practical matter, Congress could stop a president’s war only with a two-thirds vote in both houses overriding the veto."