FT: US ‘shifts stance’ on Afghan war

[laststeamtrain]

US ‘shifts stance’ on Afghan war

By Daniel Dombey in Washington

Published: August 10 2009 19:19 | Last updated: August 10 2009 19:19

The Obama administration has raised the stakes in Afghanistan by expanding the war to include a full-scale attack on illegal narcotics and has authorised the killing or capture of 50 drug lords, according to a report to be released on Tuesday.

The report, prepared for the US Senate foreign relations committee, says President Barack Obama has shifted dramatically from his earlier insistence that he was pursuing narrower goals than the Bush administration in Afghanistan. “The administration has raised the stakes by transforming the Afghan war from a limited intervention into a more ambitious and potentially risky counter-insurgency,” it says.

While Mr Obama said in February the US would focus on preventing the Taliban and al-Qaeda from re-establishing themselves and discounted any ambition to set up a “Jeffersonian democracy” in Afghanistan, his administration’s subsequent policy review called for a “comprehensive” approach to the insurgency.

The administration is not due to spell out its precise measures for success until September. But officials now give greater emphasis to the need to improve governance and the Afghan economy if the insurgency is to be defeated, while General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in the country, is expected to call for more resources.

<more>

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42cfdfa4-85d6-11de-98de-00144feabdc0.html

[harun]

1. First it was fight those harboring Bin Laden, then it was flat out fight

Al Qaeda, then it was fight the Taleban, then it was nation building, then it was back to fighting Al Qaeda, now it is fighting drug lords.

Typical American "war" on all fronts (that isn't really a Congressional approved war to begin with), which makes it all the more typical.

[laststeamtrain]

2. Mission Creep. Not a good sign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_creep