Last week, Taliban forces surrounded a city in northern Afghanistan, setting into motion a tactic that had long been planned. They took over the city, Kunduz, and set the stage for a fierce back and forth between the Taliban and American-backed Afghan security forces.
Government forces, according to Al Jazeera, briefly retook parts of the city, but the Taliban has since gained back its lost ground. If the Taliban is able to hold onto Kunduz, it will be the first time it has done so in 14 years.
The fighting takes on another dimension when one considers the surroundings: the homes of civilians and medical centers for the wounded.
One such center was bombed over the weekend, with many pointing the finger for the air strike at the United States. Twenty-two people were killed at the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, and an organization providing staff for the facility has since pulled out of the city, calling the U.S. air strike a war crime. President Obama has announced an investigation into the bombing.
The chaos in Afghanistan and elsewhere underscores an uncomfortable reality for military strategists: Our strategy of training and arming security forces and other groups in the region is failing.
As the New York Times reported on Oct. 3, it is not just the forces in Afghanistan that are unable to succeed. In Iraq, the United States has trained police and army units that are barely engaging ISIS despite being in a hotbed of activity for the terrorist group. In Syria, a $500 million Defense Department training program has produced a disappointingly small number of soldiers.
These problems didn’t manifest while American combat advisers were leading themselves groups. Part of the rationale for the United States to end its combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan was because the military had spent billions on training these security forces as a viable replacement for a heavy U.S. presence. For a while, it seemed that they could hold a tenuous peace in these countries. But now, militant groups are flexing their strength in the region, and our training simply isn’t enough.
It’s a particularly rough blow to Obama’s foreign-policy ideals. In 2014 speech, he laid out his vision for protecting America’s interests, the lynchpin of which was to be foreign forces trained and equipped by the U.S. military.
“America must always lead on the world stage,” he said in the speech, a commencement for West Point graduates. “But U.S. military action cannot be the only — or even the primary — component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
Analogies aside, the president’s sentiment is one that is shared by most U.S. citizens, average Joes and policymakers alike. But it’s clear that the strategy we have adopted instead of direct military intervention has not been effective.
The strategy of creating proxy soldiers to protect American interests for us is easily palatable, and indeed, the Daily Iowan Editorial Board has previously endorsed this tactic. Yet in the face of unquestionable failure, we’ll need a more holistic solution to make up for the barriers to success now uncovered.