US papers hail Afghan strategy, but warn of challenges ahead

NEW YORK - Major American newspapers Saturday voiced support for U.S. President Barack Obama's new strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, but warned against the challenges posed by resurgent al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
The New York Times called the plan a "good step", while The Washington Post described it as "conservative as well as bold".
Both newspapers backed the move to increase development aid for Pakistan.
"(W)e strongly endorse a bipartisan Congressional proposal to invest $1.5 billion annually in Pakistan's people with the building of schools, hospitals and roads", The New York Times said in an editorial.
"America cannot hope to defeat the insurgents if Afghans and Pakistanis don't see their lives improve," said the editorial: The Remembered War.
The editorial said, "President Obama has asserted leadership over the war that matters most to America's security - the one against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"We do not underestimate the difficulty of succeeding against these deadly adversaries. But it was greatly encouraging simply to see the president actually focusing on this war and placing it in the broader regional framework that has been missing from American policy. That is a good first step toward fixing the dangerous situation that former President George W. Bush created when he abandoned the necessary war in Afghanistan for the ill-conceived war of choice in Iraq.
"Mr. Obama has come back to first principles. Instead of Mr. Bush's vague talk of representative democracy in Afghanistan, he defined a more specific mission"-- to defeat al-Qaeda.
Referring to the resurgence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, The Times said, "Mr. Obama confronts many challenges. He must persuade the Pakistani intelligence service to stop underwriting the Taliban and the Afghan government to eradicate corruption. He also must persuade NATO to contribute more to the war effort - if not combat troops in Afghanistan, then trainers or development aid.
"To rebuild popular support for a mission that once was a global priority, Mr. Obama and other leaders have to keep repeating this message: If Afghanistan falls, if Pakistan falls, extremists will unleash even more fury. That is a threat to us all. Mr. Obama's plan breaks welcome new ground by treating Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single coherent theater of operation. It finally sets benchmarks for measuring progress by Kabul and Islamabad. It seeks to bring other regional players into the discussion, including Iran and Russia.
"The new plan also recognizes there is no military-only solution. We are encouraged by Mr. Obama's plans to send hundreds of civilians to help develop new jobs in Afghanistan and an economy not tied to poppy production...
"His plans to urge so-called moderate Taliban to abandon their hard-line leaders is worth trying. But that will require dealing with one of the most disturbing bits of news of the last week. More than seven years into the fight, the leader of the American intelligence community acknowledged that it knows shockingly little about the Taliban command structure."
Giving reasons for calling the plan "conservative and bold", The Washington Post said," It is conservative because Mr. Obama chose to embrace many of the recommendations of U.S. military commanders and the Bush administration, based on the hard lessons of seven years of war. Yet it is bold -- and politically brave -- because, at a time of economic crisis and war-weariness at home, Mr. Obama is ordering not just a major increase in U.S. troops, but also an ambitious effort at nation-building in both Afghanistan and Pakistan", The Post said in an editorial.
"He (Obama) is right to do it," The Post added.
"What distinguishes the president's plan -- and opens him to criticism from some liberals as well as conservatives -- is its recognition that U.S. goals cannot be achieved without a major effort to strengthen the economies and political institutions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Bush administration tried to combat the al-Qaeda threat with limited numbers of U.S. and NATO troops, targeted strikes against militants, and broad, mostly ineffective, aid programmes...", the editorial said.
The newspaper said the Obama administration's were not the product of starry-eyed idealism or an attempt to convert either country into "the 51st state" but of a realistic appreciation of what has worked -- and failed -- during the past seven years.
"That effort will be expensive and will require years of steadiness. But it offers the best chance for minimizing the threat of Islamic jihadism -- to this country and to the world," it said.