Polls Down; More Troops Needed

Polls Down; More Troops Needed

One thing has already become crystal clear in the weeks since the Obama administration sent 17,000 reinforcements to Afghanistan. They didn’t send enough troops.

The nation’s highest ranking military officer, Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen, confirmed as much yesterday speaking on CNN when he said the situation in Afghanistan is “deteriorating.” That’s the state of affairs even though U.S. and NATO troop strength in Afghanistan is at the highest level ever and after the Marines launched the largest U.S. military offensive to date in the Helmand valley earlier this summer.

Mullen counseled patience, that the administration’s new strategy and new commanders were only now being put in place. That counsel comes as new polls that show support for the war is declining as it enters its ninth year. It’s not surprising when the only news out of Afghanistan is bad.


The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal is due to hand in his strategy review and plan for the way forward within the next couple of weeks. It is expected to include a request for more troops. The Obama administration must use this opportunity to define the problem in Afghanistan and provide a solution that the American people can understand.

A major offensive is needed in Afghanistan. The Taliban currently have the initiative and that initiative must be broken. War in the modern era is all about perceptions. The perception among Afghans and the world community is that the “insurgent network” in Afghanistan is winning.

Former Afghan commander retired Gen. David Barno told the Senate Armed Services Committee back in February that 2009 would largely be a holding action, focused on securing the country for elections, and that it wouldn’t be until 2010 that the U.S. and NATO launch a counteroffensive. Waiting for next year’s fighting season to mount a counteroffensive will be too long.

There are about 57,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Marine Expeditionary Brigade went into Helmand. The Army Stryker brigade is operating in the Kandahar area. An additional Army Combat Aviation Brigade is also now in the country. Almost an entire brigade of U.S. troops is tied down training the Afghan security forces, a necessary mission, but it removes a lot of combat power needed for offensive operations.

At least four more maneuver brigades and an additional combat aviation brigade must be sent to Afghanistan. It’s too late to get many of those troops in country before the fighting season ends; but plans must be set in motion to move them there and have them ready to begin offensive operations as soon as the snows melt next spring. It’s also likely that fighting will remain intense in the south throughout the long winter.

Kandahar must not be allowed to fall to the Taliban. If a Tal Afar style operation is needed, where the city is encircled and entry and exit controlled and troops flooded into the city itself, then so be it. Strategically, it is much too vital to lose. Securing Kandahar and eliminating Taliban cells operating there should be an immediate objective.

There are logistical challenges to sending and supplying such a large force in austere Afghanistan. They are surmountable.

At the moment, the biggest obstacle is Iraq. The U.S. still has a large land army, with some of its premier combat units, tied down there, at a time when freedom of operation has been severely curtailed because Iraqis want the U.S. out. It’s time to accept a high level of risk in Iraq to free up troops, helicopters and resources for Afghanistan.

Join the Conversation

If we waiver here and now, all the sacrifices to this point are mute. We must rise to the challenge and break their backs. Perception is reality as far as the civilian take on the news cycle goes. Not much has changed in the limited scope of understanding the war reporting since the TET offensive, as far as the average viewer is concerned, in my opinion. So why worry about what they think? Votes or Victory, you choose!

Most people do not see the embedded reporting that argues for the need to accomplish the mission, since it requires one to exercise their
jelly brain.

Helmand province should have been owned since 2003, so the real start date of operations has begun only now. To those who think that the current focus of COIN is detrimental to the future readiness at peer potential combatants, I say if we lose this then what? Let’s have a BOTFEST 2009 and release what we got to do the dirtiest of work.

I hate to say it but as I have mentioned before, although some services are meeting their recruitment goals and reenlistment bonuses are a thing of the past, we have better get our SPECOPS people in the pipe at greater numbers than we have recently projected the need for them. I do not care how we do it, draft,etc., we have to do it.

“Almost an entire brigade of U.S. troops is tied down training the Afghan security forces, a necessary mission, but it removes a lot of combat power needed for offensive operations.”

Look at the current infiltration of the Iraqi security forces as indicated by the recent government building bombings. It reminds me of the S. Vietnamese security forces letting the VC past the check points to attack the US Embassy, during TET.

“It’s time to accept a high level of risk in Iraq to free up troops, helicopters and resources for Afghanistan.” Have not we sacrificed enough US blood for Corporate gain in Iraq? God Bless all the vets and families of the troops that served over there! If we consider Iraq to be the continuation of our Pearl Harbor of 9/11, via government deception and criminal intention, then Afghanistan is our Normandy and Pacific campaign.

AFPAK is priority. The real weapons of mass destruction are clear and present!

Good Morning Folks,

What should we expect, The war in Afghanistan was put on the back burner while we poured all our military resources into the needless war in Iraq. For years many journalists, the generals never had the guts to disagree with Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush, said 20K troops in Afghanistan was not enough and documented the rebuilding of the Taliban and our importance at finding and taking out al Qaeda and bib Laden.

The lives we have lost so far this year and will in the future in Afghanistan should righty be charged to the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush administration.

The sacrifices in Afghanistan today are do to a spineless Pentagon who valued careers over do what is right for the defense of the United States. of all of the now 1500 Admirals and Generals in the U.S. Military only one and that was General Eric K. Shenseki stood up to the gand of three, all of his brothers and sisters turned their back on him.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

What is the strategic benefit in Afghanistan? As soon as we leave they will revert to barbarism. A small force of 20k is more than enough to hunt terrorists, prevent the Taliban from massing, and keep a watch on the Paki nukes. A small force is also politically sustainable.
A 50k+ force is not politically sustainable or strategically justified.

Mark,

The Taliban have an improved small unit operational capability as some have suggested due to continuous fighting for generations. With the money built up from opium warehouses that were allowed to exist previously, they are heavily weaponized.

We cannot just blow a house up because they went inside, like the CIA did before. We have to wait till they come out or dress up in women’s clothes and have our female Marines kick their ass. Rotational schedules for front line troops has to be considered in this extreme environment to support bases in theatre.

All this requires personnel. Think 20k engaged, 20k in support operations and 20k just rotated out to recoup and resupply. That is 60k total, so you are right on the initial 20k, but an additional 20k is Mike Force capable, and for a surge requirement, we could need up to 100k or more. Air capability for troop transport and combat aviation assets means more personnel.

Regionally battle tactics vary, due to different fighting styles of the locals. Remember, we are just not looking for Taliban landlords, we need Bin Laden’s renter boys in the crosshairs.

Byron,

Roger that!

Some things I have trouble understanding:
1. What the hell is the Quetta shura? If the US knows that taliban HQ is operating in Quetta, what is stopping them from doing something about it? If they dont think the shura is in quetta, then why keep up this charade?
2. Many of my (leftwing) friends from Pakistan suspect that the US is actually trying to get the ISI to help them get out of Afghanistan without it being a PR disaster and is basically waiting for the ISI to make some sort of livable deal with the Taliban. And my Indian friends suspect that in return ISI gets to keep the kashmir jihad going. Is this conspiracy mongering or could it be true? If its not true, I suggest that the widespread existence of these theories is a sign that the US is not able to communicate effectively. If its true, then a lot of people are being killed for PR purposes, which seems immoral.
3. Whats the plan?
I think that the US is not winning in Afghanistan, not because the war is so “complex”. Its because at one level its really simple. As Bin Laden said: people will bet on the stronger horse. In this case, far too many people are betting that the taliban will win. Unless there is a decisive change in that assessment, its a self-fulfilling prophecy. It may be that in war nobody will tell you their whole plan, but its also true that in this case not seeing a plan keeps a lot of fence-sitters on the fence. I look forward to being enlightened.

The President has been seriously remiss in his duties to sell this war to the American people-it is no wonder support has dropped off. I don’t want the Administration to rush out its new metrics, but the President needs to get out ahead of this and start doing the heavy lifting in preparing the American people for the inevitable troop increases.

I think it’s way more complicated than that. I remember my father yelling that if we leave Vietnam, then the commies win. Well, what is the alternative? My mom asked. With two boys in the military at the time she asked if we should keep fighting for another decade just so we won’t lose face. That said would another ten years in Vietnam made a difference?

No western nation has ever tamed Afghanistan, and in the last few centuries no modern army ever prevailed (even though the Soviets were beaten in part by the Stinger missile).

Is our presence there to win? Win what? I wish the administration would explain what constitutes winning in Afghanistan. Perhaps if they could define it for the public and show some results after almost a decade, then it would not be so hard to bolster support for it.

Do we really expect to establish democracy for a people that don’t want to change the way they have governed themselves for centuries? Does anyone really think that when we leave anything will ever be different about a nation that lives barely beyond the way it lived when the Persians and later Alexander led the Greeks into Central Asia? And the British and the Indians and the Russians.

I am a bit skeptical of the Afghanistan mission because it’s a little like the reasons for invading Iraq. They have WMDs…no they are in violation of UN Resolution 1442…no it’s to establish a democracy…the goalposts kept changing and we just stopped explaining it and hoped the war weary public forgot about why we went in there in the first place when the massive civil violence died down.

I once thought we were there to catch Osama Bin Laden and smash the Taliban. Well, Osama is nowhere to be found, no one in the government even mentions his name anymore, and after smashing the Taliban army in the Shah-e-Kot Valley in 2004 the Taliban are stronger than ever, and this time the locals in Helmand province are apparently not on our side.

Now we hear that it’s getting worse even with an additional 17,000 troops.

I think to win there we first have to know what that means, and then ask if it is worth it. Don’t we at least owe that to the public? Other than a few veterans, I don’t know anyone who really has a clear idea what the exact goals are in Afghanistan. I know for sure we owe those answers to those fair questions to those who are doing the hard work on the battlefields day in and day out.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Troops aren’t the main issue here. The main issue is what are we doing there? (strategically) Not the historical reasons for our deployment, rather what is the end game and how do we measure progress toward/away from it?

Oh, and if you mouthed “a thriving democracy” as the goal, you need to go sit in a corner until an adult comes to pick you up. There are dozens of failed states all around the world; Afghanistan is just one. From Somalia, in what Sarah Palin calls the country of Africa, the Ivory coast, Kenya, the Congo, the list keeps going. If you don’t like Africa….what about Burma or the half of Pakistan that isn’t governed? They’re all full of religion, chaos, goats, and some even have mountains. Don’t forget the the only thing they don’t have are thousands of Americans Troops crawling all over them…. I mean if you were going to sew mischief/mayhem would you set up shop in a neighborhood that the FBI/Police are raiding; or would you go somewhere they don’t care about?

I mean adding troops is a tactic, not a strategy. And if they’re used like they have been used then don’t expect anything to change. So far all we’re good at is spreading the few forces we do have a thinly as possible until any firepower advantage they possessed is overshadowed by sheer numbers. But then again with this type of talent, is it any wonder we have strategies and policies that look like they should be hanging by a lady bug magnet from a proud parent’s someone’s refrigerator?

But then again…how would formulate strategy without anyone who seems to know how to do strategy. I mean we keep handing out important jobs to anyone who can mail in 10 box tops, prove they were a Senior Fellow in a Think Tank whose entire ideology continues to be disproven by day to day reality, and promise continue the status quo to the utmost of their ability. Besides Gates’ unusual display of competence & cojones, we seem to be collecting “experts” whose bios all include little if any military experience, a PhD in Foreign Affairs/French Literature from the school that isn’t know for either, a magical transformation from grad student outsider to think tank insider for 10 organizations that just change the order of the words Center-Defense-Institute around….before being nominated the Undersecretary of Defense for _________ at 40.

pennsT98

Beautifully put, artfully said.

Regarding “think Tanks”: The Heritage Foundation is often quoted on NPR. And I ask why? What makes a group of ideologues scholars? — particularly if they are paid for their specific one sided opinions and “analysis” if we know the outcome already?

This isn’t academia. It’s paid for propaganda.

True scholars put forth facts objectively and are willing to face facts, facts that their policies are wrong and have produced chaos and dead Americans. If you offered this at the Heritage Foundation they would throw you out.

I can think of no single institution that is less patriotic than one comprised of those who call for war, but none of whom have the balls to sign up for it or fight it.

Like Jonah Goldberg, who calls Democrats fascists. I once asked him in an email why he didn’t go join the Army. His answer was that he felt he had a larger mission here. I see. I also know that my father and my brothers signed up to fight, all Democrats. Even if there were an internet in their days, they wouldn’t be bragging about “blogging their way to freedom”.

Daniel Russ
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Perhaps the reason that we are in Afghanistan and Iraq is to prevent the Insurgency from spreading to the United States. Ya, you know what I mean we have to kill them over there before they can kill us over here.
You can question the intellegence or even the integrity of your supiriors but in the end you will do what they say. Why because their authority comes directly from the American people and the authority of the American people is unlimited, isn’t it?
Is the Constitution a higher authority? Who has the authority to alter the Constitution?
Of course we all know the autority of the American people. They elected President Obama and he appointed Secretary Gates, a civilain I might add, who was approved by the Senate, and therefore these leaders and a few others like McCain and Clinton get to make decsions for the American people. It is your duty to uphold those decsions. End of Story.
You can not resist because if you do you will be crushed like an ant. If you obey you will recieve the gratitude of those who run the system. If you cause trouble you will be crushed. You are not fighting for narrow special interests as enemy propoganda would suggest. You are makeing an altruistic sacfrifice for the benifit of all, that will in turn bring you a sense of happiness. Is it neccissary for me to add your work will also earn you a place in Paradise next to the right hand of God.

Man by another name.….so if I follow your reasoning then a bunch of bearded Pashtu speaking foreigners are going to bring the fight to free their homeland of foreign troops to Dallas, Philadelphia, Seattle?? Doesn’t make sense, doesn’t add up. Besides you’re assuming the man that attacks you when you invade his home either wishes to, or has the mean to bring the fight to the US. The 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Kabul…

Your second point is that the authority of a government is derived from the people, through the Constitution; therefore the actions of our leaders actions are somehow sanctioned or condoned by the people. That is not true, for when our leaders become drunk with power, abusive, or even dismissive of “the people” it is our duty to hold them accountable.

As far as being crushed by the system, so be it. I tell the truth because it is right. I stand by my word because I wish to be honorable, to have honor. I do so that I might look my family, fellow citizens, fellow veterans and someday my children in the face without the shame of one who prostitutes him/herself for political or financial gain.

Maybe I fight and win, maybe I don’t. At worst I serve as inspiration to those that would follow my example that there are not alone. Many of those who challenged the status quo were opposed by their contemporaries. George Marshall, one of America’s greatest strategists and leaders was ignored and overlooked for almost 20 years before getting his chance to show what competence and talent is capable of. Col. John S. Boyd’s work is indisputably some of the most brilliant and profound military thinking in the modern era, but rather than embrace his talent and vision he was retired so lesser men could run the Air Force into the ground. Look upon it today, a shell of its former self. The list goes on, and in militaries near and far. Marshal Zhukov anyone?

The crime is not in fighting and failing; that is forgivable. What is unforgivable is to stand by and say nothing, giving your tacit approval to that which should be resisted.

Yo, I’m ready send me back

Maybe I’m not as smart as u guys but here’s my 25¢ worth.

No & So Vietnam has 331,210 sq km. Afghanistan has 652,230. Nearly twice the size of “both” the Vietnams.

In 1968 we had about 500,000 in RVN. What do we have in AFG? 70,000. About 14% of what we had in Vietnam. But, where can we get even 100,000 troops in today’s military?? We could walk away fm RVN and the world not crumble. The North Vietnamese had won and were content to sit back and enjoy the spoils.

What is winning for al Qaeda and Taliban? (add Hamas and Hezbollah) As Islamists wining is the destruction of the Dar al-Kufr. What is their time line? Literally forever. There is no end.

Here is a quote from CNN today: Al-Zawahiri warned Muslims that they have a religious duty to support the jihad, or struggle, or face punishment from God. “No people abandons Jihad without Allah giving them a general punishment,” he said, quoting the Quran.

Even The Economist magazine said that leaving AFG would ‘embolden” the enemy. Remember the Palestinians passing out candy after 9/11? How would they celebrate an infidel retreat from Dar al Islam??

I saw a number that only 5% of Muslims are Islamists. Assume that is reasonably correct 5% of 1,000,000,000 is 50,000,000 and if only 1% is really willing to die fighting us that 500,000.

I believe an end state would be where we can reduce the number willing to fight us. Some will have to die. Some, by our deeds – not words – will be swayed to understand our war is NOT on Islam, but those who wish us harm. Some people that might help us on the global scale are the 950,000,000 Muslims who are not Islamists. Enlisting them will not be via kinetic energy

The focus is Afghanistan, but this is a world war. They know it. We can surrender, but they can’t. (Can’t not won’t)

I think the war in Iraq damaged our credibility so that people around the world are now questioning why we are in Afghanistan. I don’t think we have a viable alternative other than to try our best to win that war, but it’s going to take a greater commitment and more support from the American public. I don’t understand why our supposed friends in Europe can’t send more troops to help us. If we lose, their security is just as compromised as ours.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement