Obama says Afghan withdrawal viable in 2011

The White House claimed yesterday that the American-led allies were making enough progress against al-Qa'ida and the Taliban for the planned "responsible" withdrawal of US forces in Afghanistan to begin in the middle of next year.

But a long-anticipated review issued almost exactly 12 months after President Obama announced the temporary dispatch of 30,000 extra US troops, warns that the gains are fragile and reversible. It highlights two crucial problems: chronic corruption and poor government in the country, and the failure of the US and its nominal ally Pakistan to root out Taliban sanctuaries in that country.

The report said the US and its allies have blunted the Taliban's momentum and forced it onto the defensive in many key areas, and that al-Qa'ida's top leadership, believed to be in hiding in Pakistan, is now weaker and under greater pressure than at any point since it fled Afghanistan in late 2001.

Nine years later however the war – now the longest in US history – continues. And even if the claimed gains can be consolidated, US troops will be in Afghanistan at least until 2014, the theoretical target date for when the Kabul government is supposed to take complete control of the country's security.

In the meantime however, 2010 has already proved the bloodiest year yet for US and Nato forces, while civilian deaths are running at record levels. Yesterday alone, a roadside bomb killed 14 civilians in western Afghanistan, while four Afghan soldiers were killed in a night-time US air strike.

On Wednesday, the International Committee of the Red Cross warned that the worsening violence had made it more difficult than at any time in three decades for aid groups to reach people in need.

The review noted moreover that even if the 2014 date was met, the US would still have to "support Afghanistan's development and security as a strategic partner" in the future – implying a continuing military involvement in the country even after an official end to combat operations.

Some 140,000 Nato troops are deployed in Afghanistan, 100,000 of them American. But the crux remains, as the review acknowledges, Washington's extraordinarily tricky relationship with Pakistan, described as "central" to success in the region. Those ties are now said, with some some understatement, to be "uneven."

Although the partnership is "heading in the right direction," it has been hampered by the heavy casualties taken by the Pakistani military and civilians alike, and insufficient co-operation between US and Pakistani forces in the border areas where the safe havens flourish. Even then, military means alone will not resolve the problem. More effective aid and development strategies are also needed.

The review is unlikely to end debate within government over the future of a war costing $113bn (£72bn) a year, nor placate a public increasingly opposed to it.

What Obama said... and what it means

"The core goal of the US strategy in the Afghanistan and Pakistan theatre remains to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al-Qa'ida in the region and to prevent its return to either country."

This statement begs a number of questions about why the US is fighting in Afghanistan. The country is no longer the hideout of al-Qa'ida nor has it been since 2001. Al-Qa'ida is as much a set of ideas as it is a functioning organisation. It is therefore difficult to defeat – though the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden would be seen in the US as a great victory. The Obama administration has other goals in Afghanistan, such as coming out of the war without appearing to have been defeated or failing to achieve its ends. As for al-Qa'ida, its leaders say they are delighted to have sucked the US into a ground war in a Muslim country.

"The momentum achieved by the Taliban in recent years has been arrested in much of the country and reversed in some key areas... these gains remain fragile and reversible."

This seems to be a slender achievement by the US which has 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and will be spending $113bn a year. The US political and military elite is split on how far the surge in troop numbers is paying off. It has enabled the army to launch an offensive in south Afghanistan, but taking territory against a guerrilla enemy does not mean much. The Taliban still controls provinces near Kabul.

"The denial of extremist safe havens will require greater co-operation with Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan."

This little sentence intentionally understates the US dilemma in Afghanistan and in relations with Pakistan. The Taliban can never be defeated so long as they can seek safety, recruits and supplies across the 2,500km border with Pakistan. For the US, military victory is not possible unless this border is closed. The US embassy in Islamabad, according to leaked cables, and this week's National Intelligence Estimate for Pakistan, both say Pakistan is not going to abandon its covert support for the Taliban. The Pakistan army is prepared to act against the "Pakistan Taliban" but not against Afghan insurgents. The review produces little evidence that co-operation with Pakistan is increasing.

"We are also supporting Afghanistan's efforts... to build institutions with increased transparency and accountability to reduce corruption."

Corruption remains pervasive within the government of Hamid Karzai, pictured, encouraged by torrents of foreign aid money, the expenditure of which is largely unmonitored. The US is also to blame by installing warlords and militia leaders after the Taliban fell.

"Our strategy in Afghanistan is setting the conditions to begin the responsible reductions of US forces in July 2011."

The vague vocabulary gives a sense of slipperiness and indecision. No doubt there will be a small reduction in US forces next year, but it may only be a symbolic one. The US army has been talking up 2014 as the real date for withdrawal. President Obama said last year he did not intend to be sucked into a Vietnam-type quagmire or be strong-armed by the military into sending a continual flow of reinforcements. At the same time it difficult for Mr Obama, weakened by losses in Congressional elections, to turn down his generals. Despite optimistic statements by the US army commander General David Petraeus, pictured, and Defence Secretary Robert Gates there is little sign that enough progress will have been made by the middle of next year for a substantial withdrawal of troops. On the other hand an ABC poll published yesterday showed that 54 per cent of Americans favour the start of a withdrawal next July.