By Joseph D. Szydlowski

(AXcess News) Washington - Three experts offered as many solutions for problems in Afghanistan to a Senate committee, following the two bloodiest months in the war there.

The experts, appearing Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, often disagreed, save for two areas: the war's cost and the risk of an unstable Pakistan.

John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security, espoused increased military operations. Rory Stewart, director of Harvard University's Carr Center on Human Rights Policy, suggested a light-touch role focused on increasing Afghan involvement. And Stephen Biddle, senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, advised a middle-of-the-road approach.

Nevertheless, all three often circled back around and agreed on certain points. Nagl and Biddle said coalition forces must commit between 500,000 and 600,000 security forces, most of whom would be Afghans, for five years.

To achieve that, Nagl said, would cost coalition forces the same amount "in lives and dollars as in the last eight years."

Success was itself a murky concept. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the committee chair, said  the United States has already accomplished its military objectives.

"The goal of the president is to prevent al-Qaida from being in Afghanistan," Kerry said. "We are doing better in Pakistan, and there's no al-Qaida in Afghanistan." 

He reminded the committee that U.S. forces recently killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an al-Qaida leader, in Somalia.

Biddle cautioned, however, that the Nabhan killing is an example of successful counter-terrorism. What Afghanistan needs, he said, is counter-insurgency, which takes a broader approach to fighting rebels. It focuses on the safety of the people through infrastructure and policy development and purging corruption from government, on top of traditional counter-terrorism. Coalition forces should secure large tracts of land and not sweat the smaller parts, he said.

That is absolutely wrong, Stewart said.

Stewart, who trekked across Afghanistan for three years, said American soldiers should draw back and train Afghans to provide security. He said that focusing on Afghanistan for Pakistani security is specious.

"We've gone into a room with a cat and an angry tiger. We start to beat the cat. When you're asked why you're beating the cat, you say ‘Because I'm dealing with the tiger,'" he said. "You're beating the cat because you don't know what to do with the tiger."

Pakistan, he argued, has far too much strength to fear an unstable Afghanistan.

"Pakistan is less stable than it was because of internal strife, to which Afghanistan is largely irrelevant," Stewart said.

All three agreed that an unstable Pakistan posed a far graver threat than an unstable Afghanistan.

"A failed state may be more safe than a partially formed state," Stewart said. That's because Pakistan has more access to technology - and nuclear weapons. The United States should scale back to using special ops to fight actual terrorists, while focusing on training and allowing the Afghan government to conduct day-to-day security.

Afghan Parliamentarian Shinkai Zahine Karokhail said in an interview that she wants more U.S. support and cooperation. She was one of several Afghans who attended the hearing.

"We don't have military helicopters, we don't have aircraft, we don't have proper military equipment," she said. "We need more coordination of Afghan security and American security."

She cited several instances in which American bombs killed Afghans, only one or two of whom belonged to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

Joint Chief of Staff Mike Mullen testified before Congress Tuesday, calling for 17,000 more American troops and 4,000 trainers.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., on Wednesday urged President Barack Obama to create an Afghanistan study group, similar to the Iraq Study Group. It would provide a united, bipartisan and expert outlook for the war and strategies.

Wolf also supported the troop-surge strategy.

He said the study group would have latitude to critique tactics and policy.

"You're not trying to get people who only have one idea," Wolf said. "It isn't just a paper group and me."

Wolf offered several names of potential board members, including previous Iraq Study Group members such as former senator Charles S. Robb and former White House chief of staff Ed Meese. Former senators Sam Nunn, Bob Kerrey and John Warner would also be good choices, he said.

Source: Scripps Howard Foundation Wire