In yet another article from Foreign Policy, it appears that there are some divergent views on the status of the Afghan War as articulated in an article entitled Petraeus Versus Obama. 

Highlights 

• Today there are two wars taking place in Afghanistan. The first is the war confidently described by the U.S. military: a conflict that according to leading military commanders and even the secretary of defense is “headed in the right direction” and has a “good chance at success.” But virtually every day there are press reports that speak of another war. It is one defined by rising civilian and military death tolls in a growing number of once-safe regions — particularly in the north of the country — now marred by violence and insecurity; government corruption and incompetence that remains as bad as ever; and an increasing sense of fatalism among the Afghan people. The problem is that the latter conflict actually seems to be taking place — while the former seems to be a figment of the military leadership’s imagination. 
• This growing divide is increasingly bringing into question the very credibility of U.S. military statements about military progress in Afghanistan. And the Obama administration faces the possibility that its planned July 2011 deadline for the commencement of troop withdrawals may be undermined by the very individuals that are tasked with carrying out the war effort.
• From a security standpoint the situation in Afghanistan is worse than at any point in the past nine years. Already 406 U.S. troops have been killed this year — if the trend continues, the highest annual death toll since the conflict began. A recent report by the Afghan NGO Safety Office (ANSO), paints a very different picture than the one described by U.S. officials. The authors conclude that the insurgency is in its ascendancy and describe it as “increasingly mature, complex and effective.” The White House got into the pessimism game with an assessment that said “progress across the country was uneven,” Afghan governance remained “unsatisfactory,” and “district-by-district data show that only minor positive change had occurred with respect to security.” What seems most backwards about the military’s congenital optimism is that even by the key metrics of their own counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy there has been almost no change for the better in Afghanistan.
• Governance in Afghanistan remains as hopeless as ever. September’s parliamentary elections now appear to have been so fraud-ridden that the entire vote is in question. U.S. efforts to curb incessant government corruption have not led to any real crackdown on graft; instead it has heightened tensions with the Karzai government, and reports that Afghan government officials receive bags of cash from the Iranian government have been met with official shrugs in Kabul.  
• While the Pentagon talks optimistically of progress being made in training the Afghan Army, the force is still years away from being able to operate effectively on its own. Attrition rates remain high, drug use is rampant, and soldiers lack competence in basic military skills. During recent offensives in the town of Marjah in Helmand province and ongoing efforts in Kandahar, the Pentagon claimed that the efforts were Afghan-led. So long as Taliban insurgents can melt over the border into Pakistan and so long as the Afghan government is incapable of taking control of areas that have been cleared — either administratively or militarily — these gains are likely to be ephemeral. 
• If the military’s public performance is any indication, it seems likely that Obama’s generals will regale him with signs of halting progress divorced from Afghanistan’s bleak reality. The simple fact is that ever since the president announced a July 2011 deadline for commencing withdrawals the military has chafed against what its views as an arbitrary deadline for pulling the plug on the operation. Rather than following Obama’s admonition to not send troops into areas that could not be realistically handed over to the Afghan security forces by 2011, NATO and U.S. forces have engaged in a “clear, hold, and build strategy” in places where there is limited chance of turnover any time soon. It’s hard to square that approach with a White House that seems desperate to embrace political reality and find the Afghan exit ramp. But by spinning an optimistic tale of progress — and pushing stories to journalists that suggest success is just around the corner — the military could see only a nominal decrease of troops in July 2011. At the very least, it will put more public pressure on the White House to stay the course and fudge the troop withdrawal deadline. To be fair, military leaders appear to believe they are doing what it is necessary for the United States to “win” in Afghanistan. But that doesn’t mean anyone — least of all the White House or the American people — should confuse the military’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan with the truth.  

SFTT Analysis:

This cogent portrayal of the situation in Afghanistan confirms SFTT’s recent reporting that ISAF/NATO commander’s strategic communications efforts revolve around spinning success out of continued failure.  At some point the debate will fracture around this premise that there is in fact a behind-the-scenes sophisticated campaign to sustain the current operational footprint in Afghanistan beyond that ordered by the President in December 2009.  Given the likelihood that Congressional majorities may change in tomorrow’s election, the political price will only grow that much steeper.  At the other end of the debate are the thousands of deployed troopers that have no choice but to remain tactically engaged in a no-win situation.  However, now it has become increasingly obvious that these troopers are not only under-resourced and ill-equipped, but are also being mislead.