PPI - Radically Pragmatic
  • Donate
Skip to content
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Locations
    • Careers
  • People
  • Projects
  • Our Work
  • Events
  • Donate

Our Work

What a Responsible Transition in Afghanistan Should Look Like

  • December 10, 2010
  • Jordan Michael Smith

The Center for New American Security (CNAS) just released a new report on the way forward in Afghanistan. As the report’s title indicates, “Responsible Transition” calls for the United States to hand over responsibility for security to the Afghans over the next few years. The plan involves leaving 25-35,000 U.S. troops behind to defeat Afghanistan, with the rest withdrawn by 2014. “Responsible Transition” also calls for America to put more pressure on Pakistan to crack down on extremists.

CNAS’s plan to scale down the U.S. presence in Afghanistan is a wise one, recognizing as it does that “all options are likely to be suboptimal” but a long-term nation-building project is particularly suboptimal. But it seems wishful thinking that more pressure on Pakistan coming from the Obama administration will do what nine years of pressure haven’t already: convince Pakistan to expel the Taliban and any other troublemakers from its territory. As long as Pakistan knows we need it more than it needs us, it can take U.S. money while doing little.

Moreover, as Michael Cohen points out, CNAS’s report entirely sidesteps the thorny issue of talking with the Taliban. This is a key issue, since the Taliban have deep roots in the Pashtun community. Any long-term peace is going to have to include elements of the Taliban, as the administration sometimes seems to realize.

A more realistic plan would be something along the lines of what the Afghanistan Study Group and the Center for American Progress have recommended. Encouraging political reconciliation must be at the forefront of U.S.’s strategy going forward, not simply an afterthought. Military operations will have to take a backseat to diplomacy and politics if long-term progress is going to be made. Deal-making will have to include bargains with the Taliban, unsavoury though that prospect is. There simply is no other way to bring a modicum of stability to the troubled region unless the Taliban are made a part of some power-sharing agreement.

It’s a positive sign that the gang at CNAS recognizes that a sizable U.S. footprint in Afghanistan is unsustainable. As the strongest boosters of large-scale counterinsurgency approaches, CNAS has an important role to play in forming a strategy that focuses primarily–and eventually, exclusively–on preventing terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland. That should always be the top priority. When the Obama administration releases its Afghanistan review next week, let’s hope it agrees.

Related Work

Press Release  |  July 17, 2026

Trump’s Claims on Election Security, Foreign Influence Do Nothing but Weaken America’s Trust in Elections

  • Danielle Steitz
In the News  |  July 10, 2026

Jacoby on CNN: The impact of Ukraine Patriot System Manufacturing and What It Is Like to Endure a Russian Attack

  • Tamar Jacoby
In the News  |  July 7, 2026

Jacoby on Background Briefing: What it is Like to Have Russian Missiles and Drones Heading for Your Apartment Building

  • Tamar Jacoby
Blog  |  July 7, 2026

Steitz on Substack: NATO is Facing a Catch-22 Thanks to Trump

  • Danielle Steitz
In the News  |  July 1, 2026

Ainsley on Moral Maze: Are America’s founding ideals a reality or a myth?

  • Claire Ainsley
In the News  |  June 29, 2026

Ainsley on The Good Fight Club: Why the Center Left Is Losing, the Squad vs. the Median Voter, and How Patriotism Wins Elections

  • Claire Ainsley
  • Never miss an update:

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
PPI Logo
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Donate
  • Careers
  • © 2026 Progressive Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved.
  • |
  • Privacy Policy
  • |
  • Privacy Settings