Questions and answers about the war in Afghanistan

[September 12, 2009]  WASHINGTON (AP) -- Eight years past the terror attacks that led to the war in Afghanistan, the connection between that country and al-Qaida has dimmed in memory, terror leader Osama bin Laden remains at large and the fighting grinds on.

President Barack Obama must soon decide whether to commit even more U.S. troops to a campaign his commanders say is winnable, but only by starting over with a new strategy and battle plan.

Some questions and answers about the Afghanistan war, the U.S. strategy and the choices facing a president who has already doubled the number of Americans fighting in Afghanistan since taking office:

Q: Why is the United States still fighting in Afghanistan?

A: Obama, like former President George W. Bush before him, calls Afghanistan a vital bulwark against the spread of bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network. The actual shooting war, however, pits allied forces against the potent remnants of the Taliban regime ousted in 2001, allied insurgents, criminal gangs and warlord networks.

Q: Why has the war gone on so long?

A: The war began a few weeks after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with U.S. and international forces quickly overrunning the Taliban government that had sheltered bin Laden and his network. Despite early military successes, the continued presence of U.S. forces and a heavy commitment by the NATO alliance, the Taliban regrouped. After the Iraq war began in 2003, Afghanistan became the No. 2 priority for U.S. troops. The Taliban-led insurgency hardened in 2006 and 2007, but NATO refused to greatly expand its fighting force despite U.S. pressure. By 2008, the insurgency controlled significant territory and the war stalemated.

Q: What role does the United States play?

A: The United States is the largest contributor to an international coalition fighting in a dirt-poor country with rudimentary infrastructure and a weak central government beset by corruption. Obama's strategy emphasizes nonmilitary support for Afghanistan and the protection of Afghan civilians brutalized by the Taliban and drug lords.

Q: Why can't an alliance of rich countries with powerful armies finish off an irregular force of insurgents?

A: The Taliban-led insurgency has proved resilient and cunning, and Afghanistan is a bad place to fight a war. Distances are vast, roads are few. There are unforgiving mountains and the weather is bitterly cold for months. The Taliban is less of an army than a religious and cultural movement, with some public support in a conservative tribal society. The insurgents recruit, co-opt and pay off locals. They hide among civilians and use classic guerrilla ambush tactics. Above all, the insurgents know the terrain, customs and language of a country notoriously inhospitable to foreign invaders.

Q: If the war is supposed to be about al-Qaida, why aren't we fighting them?

A: They moved. Bin Laden and other senior al-Qaida leaders are presumed to be hiding across the border in Pakistan, in a mountainous region where the U.S.-supported government in Islamabad has little control. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country but the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents. The U.S. strategy is predicated on the notion that al-Qaida would return if insurgents prevail.

Q: So why don't we go after al-Qaida in Pakistan instead?

A: Because U.S. and allied hands are tied. Pakistan doesn't want that kind of war, and Pakistan is a sovereign country. The population is overwhelmingly opposed to any U.S. military presence on its soil, and analysts say the fragile civilian-led government would crumble if it was seen as endorsing a cross-border war. The CIA is in charge of hunting terror cells in Pakistan, targeting them with missile-equipped airborne drones. The Islamabad government is presumed to tolerate the arrangement in private while condemning U.S. airstrikes in public.

Q: How much longer will the Afghan war continue?

A: Military and outside analysts generally say the war could only be won with tens of thousands more forces -- both foreign and Afghan -- and a sustained campaign lasting perhaps two to four more years. After that, Afghanistan would look more like a charity case and less like a war, but Afghanistan probably would still be unable to fully protect and govern itself for a decade.

Q: Does that mean the U.S. is committed in Afghanistan for years to come?

A: Not necessarily. The Obama administration has been vague about how long it expects to stay, but Democrats in Congress could hasten a U.S. exit. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has called for a timeline and other leading Democrats are demanding more accountability from the Afghan government. On Friday, influential Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., warned that the U.S. has "lost the initiative" against insurgents and called for a shift in the U.S. mission.

Q: What are Obama's military options?

A: Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. forces for Afghanistan this year as part of a revamped counterinsurgency strategy, and McChrystal is expected to soon ask for more. Commanders on the ground say they need more forces, but it's unclear how many would be foreign and how many Afghan. Obama could hold the U.S. force size at 68,000. On the other hand, he could expand and realign U.S. forces, adding several thousand more trainers as a low-end option or sign off on a bold proposal for tens of thousands of more combat troops.

[Associated Press; By ANNE GEARAN]

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.