Afghanistan Basing Strategy

Will the U.S continue counterterrorism operations in Pakistan? Kim and Fred Kagan believe the answer to this is tantamount to whether the U.S. can retain U.S. bases and maintain current force levels in Afghanistan.  I hate math, but here’s an application of the transitive axiom:

No bases = no ability to strike terrorist cells in Afghanistan/Pakistan. 

No large troop presence = no bases.

Therefore, no large troop presence = no ability to conduct counterterrorism operations in South Asia.

My focus here is less on counterinsurgency operations and more about the need and purpose of overseas bases. To strike terrorist cells without the presence of ground troops, the U.S. will have to rely on a) Predator drones; b) special mission units c) precision guided missiles. The Kagans think options A and B are not possible without bases.

Policymakers for the past decade have argued for a smaller footprint regarding U.S. overseas bases – a shift away from large permanent structures to “lighter” facilities. Post-reconstruction Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to be the two exceptions. The Iraqis gave us the boot so we’ll have little “permanent” presence in that country. But the Kagans demonstrate why bases – physical structures, not merely access agreements or basing rights to host nation bases – still matter. Whether we get bases in Afghanistan will largely be determined by the Afghanis and to a lesser extent U.S. negotiating skills.  Like many policymakers, the Kagans omit the fact that the fate of our policy often rests with the host nation and base politics. We can’t just retain bases and 68,000 troops simply because it makes strategic sense (or not).