The Administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan review is out, and it’s very Panglossian, as expected. The five-page summary says that parts of the strategy are “working well” and that “there are notable operational gains.” They claim that the momentum of the Taliban has been stopped and reversed in “some key areas,” and that Al Qaeda senior leadership in Pakistan is under “sustained pressure.” In the most watched statement, the assessment calls for a continuation of the transition to reducing forces starting in July 2011:

As a result of our integrated efforts in 2010, we are setting the conditions to begin transition to Afghan security lead in early 2011 and to begin a responsible, conditions-based U.S. troop reduction in July 2011. Moreover, at the recent NATO Lisbon Summit, we forged a broad Afghan and international consensus, agreeing on a path to complete transition by the end of 2014. Beyond these targets, and even after we draw down our combat forces, the U.S. will continue to support Afghanistan’s development and security as a strategic partner, just as the NATO-Afghanistan partnership affirms the broader and enduring international community support to Afghanistan.

Even in announcing the adherence to the 2011 transition, the 2014 timeline for drawdown gets a mention, as does the “enduring commitment” beyond 2014. Military leaders immediately downplayed the July 2011 date, doubting that any combat troops would be allowed to leave by that time. Clearly the number of troops involved in that withdrawal will be the subject of great debate between military and civilian personnel, taking into account conditions on the ground and political realities.

But that debate in July of next year will have to look at the war as it really is. The military assessment, which basically drove the official review, sharply contrasts with two new National Intelligence Estimates on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which see little sign of progress anywhere in the occupation zone.

The classified intelligence reports contend that large swaths of Afghanistan are still at risk of falling to the Taliban, according to officials who were briefed on the National Intelligence Estimates on Afghanistan and Pakistan, which represent the collective view of more than a dozen intelligence agencies.

The reports, the subject of a recent closed hearing by the Senate Intelligence Committee, also say Pakistan’s government remains unwilling to stop its covert support for members of the Afghan Taliban who mount attacks against U.S. troops from the tribal areas of the neighboring nation. The officials declined to be named because they were discussing classified data.

They must be from Wikileaks! Arrest them!

The intelligence reviews take in the big picture and not day-to-day ground operations that are often myopic. The military is trying to claim that they’ve made lots of progress from the time that the NIE stopped collecting data, but that also coincides with the winter, when Taliban forces almost always retreat rather than fight in difficult terrain.

The realities are clear. The US has sustained more casualties this year that at any other time in the war. Civilian casualties, internal displacement and lack of access to medical treatment have grown, and remain huge challenges for those living under occupation. The US public has completely soured on the war, with 60% now believing it was not worth fighting. And as Juan Cole notes, Republicans are turning against the war.

In a significant turn of events, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), a contender for chairman of the House intelligence committee, said in response that it might be time to begin withdrawing toops from Afghanistan and for the US to have a ‘smaller footprint’ there. A small footprint approach (counter-terrorism) had been suggested in 2009 by VP Joe Biden but rejected in favor of a troop escalation and a wide-ranging ‘counter-insurgencey’ effort, which requires pacifying the whole country. Rogers seems to have been convinced by the new NIE that the latter is unlikely. Counter-insurgency depends on having a reliable local partner, but doubts have been raised about President Hamid Karzai’s dependability, to say the least.

In fact, Rogers will be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Most Democrats frame this as having “unanswered questions.” But it won’t take much to tip that in the direction of needing to end a war without purpose. It’s best to watch John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to see which way the Democrats will go on this.

As Strobel and Landay point out, we won’t actually know in July 2011 whether this so-called progress will actually wind up moving toward the desired end state in the country (I’m not even sure what that is). Will violence still be at record levels? Will the Taliban spring counter-offensive, which they always undertake, be successful? Will governance improve, at the local or national level? Will Pakistan take on the extremists within their borders? None of that is clear, but I don’t think you can call whatever’s happening now progress on any of those fronts.

UPDATE: Chuck Hagel, from the Kerry article:

“I’m not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan,” Hagel told National Journal. “It’s not sustainable at all. I think we’re marking time as we slaughter more young people.”

…I should say that I hold out little hope that Kerry will turn against the war, when he justifies it by saying “Look at what happened in the Times Square bomber case; look what happened to the airplanes that were recently threatened by package bombs.” Neither of those incidents came out of Afghanistan, and in fact Faisal Shahzad said in court that America’s presence in Afghanistan drove him to act. These events show terrorism as a global issue for intelligence and law enforcement with individual actors, not an issue of safe havens in any one part of the world. Where are today’s William Fulbrights?