Taliban can't be destroyed, Obama's team determines

WASHINGTON — As it reviews its Afghanistan policy for the second time this year, the Obama administration has concluded that the Taliban cannot be eliminated as a political or military movement, regardless of how many combat forces are sent into battle.

The Taliban and the question of how the administration should regard the Islamist movement have assumed a central place in the deliberations at the White House, according to administration officials participating in the meetings.

Based on an assessment by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, and six hours of debate involving the senior national-security staff, the administration has established guidelines on its strategy to confront the group.

The goal, senior administration officials said Thursday, is to weaken the Taliban to the degree that it cannot challenge the Afghan government or re-establish the haven it provided for al-Qaida before the 2001 U.S. invasion. Those objectives appear largely consistent with McChrystal's strategy, which he says "cannot be focused on seizing terrain or destroying insurgent forces" but should center on persuading the population to support the government.

"The Taliban is a deeply rooted political movement in Afghanistan, so that requires a different approach than al-Qaida," said a senior administration official.

Some inside the White House have cited Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese political movement, as an example of what the Taliban could become. Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the U.S. government but has political support within Lebanon and participates, sometimes through intimidation, in the political process.

Some White House advisers have noted that, while Hezbollah is a source of regional instability, it is not a threat to the United States. The administration official said the Hezbollah example has not been mentioned specifically to President Obama.

"People who study Islamist movements have made the connection," said the official, who requested anonymity.

Obama identified al-Qaida as the chief target of his Afghan policy in March, when he said he would send an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to the region, and his advisers have emphasized during the policy review that the administration views al-Qaida and the Taliban as philosophically distinct organizations.

While some White House officials are advocating an approach in Afghanistan focused first on al-Qaida, some senior military leaders have endorsed McChrystal's call to vastly expand the war effort against insurgents, including those from the Taliban. The general is seeking tens of thousands of additional troops to carry out his strategy.

Some Democrats on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, warned Obama on Thursday that a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan could trigger an uprising within his party.

Key members of the House Appropriations Committee suggested that should Obama side with McChrystal and agree to add up to 40,000 troops, the lawmakers could retaliate by attempting to cut off funds for the troop buildup.

"I believe we need to more narrowly focus our efforts and have a much more achievable and targeted policy in that region, or we run the risk of repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam and the Russians made in Afghanistan," Rep. Dave Obey, D-Wis., the committee chairman, said Thursday.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., another top appropriator and an influential voice in military affairs, predicted a fight on the House floor if a supplemental request to pay for a troop expansion were to come to a vote.

"The public is worn out by war," Murtha said. "The troops, no matter what the military says, are exhausted."

Congressional Republicans have been pressing Obama to approve McChrystal's troop-increase request.

Obey's and Murtha's comments came on a day the president's national-security adviser, James Jones, briefed House members on the situation in the region.

Material from the Tribune Washington Bureau is included in this report.