• SUPPORT CATO
• FOR STUDENTS
• FOR MEDIA
• FREE NEWSLETTERS

• HOME

• ABOUT

• BLOG

• BOOKSTORE

• EVENTS

• EXPERTS

• MULTIMEDIA

• PUBLICATIONS

Books

Reviews & Journals

Public Filings

Policy Studies

Opinion & Commentary

• RESEARCH AREAS

• SPEAKERS BUREAU

• SUPPORT CATO

• CATO UNBOUND

• DOWNSIZING
  GOVERNMENT.ORG

• ELCATO.ORG

Cato Dispatch for November 13, 2009

Subscribe to the Cato Dispatch via email

(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)

President Still Considering New Afghanistan Strategy

President Obama continues to deliberate on a new strategy for Afghanistan with his national security team. The President has reportedly been presented with several options, all of which include new U.S. deployments to the region, but has yet to make a final decision. Cato scholars have argued for a narrowing of objectives and a withdrawal of most of the U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

Writing in the Huffington Post, Foreign Policy Analyst Malou Innocent weighs the pros and cons of sending more troops versus pulling out:

For a country the size of Afghanistan, with roughly 31 million people, the Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency doctrine advises between 620,000 to 775,000 counterinsurgents -- whether native or foreign. Furthermore, typical counterinsurgency missions require such concentrations of forces for a decade or more. Given these realities, we could soon hear cries of "surge," "if only," and "not enough."

Even if the United States and its allies committed themselves to decades of armed nation building, success against al Qaeda would hardly be guaranteed. After all, in the unlikely event that we forged a stable Afghanistan, al Qaeda would simply reposition its presence into other regions of the world.

In a Cato Podcast this week, Senior Fellow Doug Bandow reiterated the proper scope of goals in Afghanistan. "We have to scale back our ambitions," he said. "To put it simply, we need to engage in counterterrorism rather than counterinsurgency. Our goal needs to be that we kill and capture anyone out there that wants to attack America or do us harm. But that doesn't mean trying to build an Afghan state. That doesn't mean trying to create a genuine national government....It means focusing on what really matters to America: Terrorism. And give up the notion that we can create a Western liberal society in Afghanistan. We can't."

Cato experts made the case for withdrawing from the region during a briefing on Capitol Hill this fall. Watch the entire video, here.

A Prudent Response to the Shooting at Fort Hood

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 dead and 31 injured, there was a rush of outrage and speculation about how to classify the incident and respond.

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies, lays out the options we have in reacting to such an event:

The country is unpacking the recent shooting at Fort Hood and analyzing the perpetrator intensely. Along with natural shock and curiosity, a principle reason for doing so is to discover what can prevent incidents like this in the future.

When faced with any risk, including rampaging gunmen, there are four options:

• Prevention — the alteration of the target or its circumstances to diminish the risk of the bad thing happening.

• Interdiction — any confrontation with, or influence exerted on, an attacker to eliminate or limit its movement toward causing harm.

• Mitigation — preparation so that, in the event of the bad thing happening, its consequences are reduced.

• Acceptance — a rational alternative often chosen when the threat has low probability, low consequence, or both.

Fort Hood presents the country with a choice: Invest extraordinary efforts in measures that cost a great deal, that invade prized rights, and that don't work? Or show our sorrow to the families and community of Fort Hood and make peace with the grief and tragedy of this incident.

Berlin Wall Anniversary Links

The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago this month, marking the collapse of Soviet communism. The anniversary is an appropriate time for stocktaking and for seeking to answer a number of questions associated with this historic event, its aftermath, and its continued influence.

• After 20 years, Paul Hollander looks back at why the Berlin Wall fell.

• Nazism and Communism: Why you rarely hear about the atrocities of Soviet communism.

• Imposing "paradise" at gunpoint.

• Flashback to 1990: Why the Soviets fell.

• Fear and Loathing in the Soviet Union: Cato President Ed Crane discusses his trip to the other side of the Iron Curtain in 1982.

• Podcast: Why Russia must confront the criminal nature of its communist past.

Chris Moody, editor, cmoody@cato.org