McChrystal Troop Boost Comes Friday

McChrystal Troop Boost Comes Friday

The long expected request for more troops from Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal will come within the next two days, his commander, Gen. David Petraeus said yesterday. While he wouldn’t elaborate on the “pre-decisional” size of that request, Petraeus said both he and Joint Chiefs chair Adm. Mike Mullen endorsed McChrystal’s new strategy for Afghanistan that was leaked earlier this week.

As for the size of the force that might ultimately be sent to Afghanistan, Petraeus said the oft cited counterinsurgency doctrine yardstick of twenty counterinsurgents per thousand civilians only applies to those specific areas most plagued by insurgent attacks, it doesn’t mean that troop density is needed across the entire country. Further, they don’t all have to be U.S. troops, he said, they can be Afghan troops and police.

The nation’s most heavily engaged combatant commander did identify a critical shortage of forward air controllers in Afghanistan, specially trained troops who call in close air support for hard-pressed troops, called Joint Tactical Air Controllers (JTAC). “Big shortage of those out there, especially as we now proliferate these security teams out there in platoon sizes, special forces teams that need the JTACs.” We have written here recently about the shortage of forward air controllers in Afghanistan.


Petraeus said he recently requested help from the chiefs of both the Army and Air Force to provide more JTACs to his troops on the ground. Other “very high demand, low density skill areas,” he highlighted included electronic warfare officers and troops with language and cultural skills.

Just ten percent of the districts in Afghanistan see seventy percent of the attacks, he said, so McChrystal will concentrate his forces “in those areas where the insurgency is most threatening the population and you have the most people.”

Prior to the Iraq surge in 2007, Petraeus and his commanders identified the insurgent “hot spots,” and focused their forces there, establishing small combat outposts in the neighborhoods. A similar approach will be followed in Afghanistan, with the Kandahar area figuring prominently in McChrystal’s counteroffensive, Petraeus said, speaking at a Marine Corps University sponsored conference in Washington, D.C.

I asked conference participant Marine Col. Julian Alford, who will command a Marine Regimental Combat Team in Afghanistan next year, how big a force would be needed to deal with the Taliban threat in Kandahar. He said one brigade could control the city, but the troops would have to be deployed inside the city. The Canadians who currently have responsibility for Kandahar, don’t patrol inside the city, he said. That will change he assured me. Interestingly, Alford, who served on previous Afghan commander Gen. David McKiernan’s team, said McKiernan had a sound, “two year” plan for Afghanistan that was similar to the one now being proposed by McChrystal

U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan will increase from around 31,000 in January to around 68,000 by the end of the year. Troops there “desperately” needed more helicopters, Petraeus said, so the Combat Aviation Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division was sent to Kandahar. Along with the helicopters brought by the Marine Expeditionary Brigade in Helmand, total rotary wing numbers have doubled in Afghanistan.

A “significant” endeavor, Petraeus said, is the advise and assist brigade of the 82nd, augmented by substantial numbers of junior officers and NCOs, that will soon be arriving in the southern part of the country to partner with Afghan Army units. Petraeus is trying to ensure that units who have spent time in Afghanistan, such as the 173rd Airborne Brigade, will return there, bringing with them hard gained institutional knowledge and experience on specific areas of operation.

In Afghanistan, Petraeus and McChrystal are trying to imitate the highly effective command structure established in Iraq, “one truly optimized over time for the conduct of counterinsurgency operations.” Petraeus said a host of essential “enablers” are still on the way to Afghanistan, a reference to either national level intelligence operators and special operations forces or more surveillance drones and aircraft, or both.

Any notion this humble reporter may have had that cyber war might not be the threat some make it out to be were dispelled yesterday when the nation’s top combatant commander identified U.S. capabilities in cyber space as one of the “big capabilities” that are lacking, and one he highlighted to the QDR strategic review team. “Cyberspace is a battleground, it cannot be uncontested, the enemy cannot have free reign out in cyberspace anymore than they have free reign in a geographical location.”

Join the Conversation

Someone pointed out to me yesterday that while we could probably put 30,000 more guys to good use, we still don’t have a written strategy from the head shed. There’s a good chance Obama and McCrystal don’t have the same mission in mind. 30,000 troops to hunt AQ and the Taliban is much different from 30,000 to build a country.

Good Afternoon Folks,

I would say the question that General’s McChrystal, and Petareus show be asking of President Obama is do we want to go back to Afghanistan and do this all over, for a third time in the future or remove Afghanistan from the list of countries that are willing to incubate terrorists and provide a safe harbor to new terrorists organizations.

We can and will deal with al Qadea and bin Laden, one way or another and bin Laden himself will be history, but there is no shortage of wealthy interests that are willing to create and support terrorists organizations.

The Taliban who would rule at least part of a US free Afghanistan have already show that the will rent out their country to the highest buyer.

Al Qaeda only raised the bar on 9/11 and there are, I’m sure others, and not necessarily Islamic interests, that would like to raise the level of terrorism bar even higher.

This should be the question not the short term economic and political costs of Afghanistan, the last administration already did that and now we are having to revisit the problem seven years later.

Stupidity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different outcome.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I think General’s McChrystal, and Petareus are the best generals in the world. But I think they are doing a repeat of what the russians have experienced. Just train good Afghan troops and have them fight thier own battles. Remember not all Afghan are bad or Zazi like.

All great comments, I’d just add my usual “this isn’t about military force, its’ about perception” speech. I really think that either the Administration and Pentagon don’t understand the situation on the ground, or they’re getting the usual revolving door advisor/lobbyist bad advice. In the end given the “cursed if you pull out, damned if you stay” aspect of Afghanistan both branches want to appear like they’re “doing something” in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately what they’re doing is escalating what is already turning out to be another Vietnam. Our problem isn’t military power, its legitimacy. They need to sort out / redo this election fiasco and bring some order and stability to A (any, pick one) section of the country.

I think as westerners, raised in a great country like ours we forget how unique we are in the world. We see that our system works and figure it will work everywhere else. The flaw in that thinking is that in order for our system of governance to work we need rule of law, a sense of national coherence, and acceptance of the governed.

We should have come in and taken over and established rule of law as step one. Only once there is stability does anyone care who’s in charge. Once you show them that a central authority can be fair, even BENEFICAL to their existence will you begin to see cooperation and acceptance. You win credibility and keep the peace by showing you’re here to help; so you set up hospitals, give out goats, connect trade routes, dig wells, etc. At first you gain the consent of the governed through security and economic development; whether you call it hearts and minds or buying their loyalty the result is the same. As you progress you gain their trust and loyalty by gradually handing over legal and administration to them until they think they did it for themselves…

Pennst98–that is one of the best short versions of successful COIN/Nation Building (there’s really not a lot of difference) that I’ve read, as well as a very good description of the current problem.

Good Morning pennst98,

You have moved for the macro to the nitty gritty micro of the problem. The question I think you are posing is how should Afghanistan be governed which I think is a legitimate consideration even at this point in the process.

Under the last administration they form of government was spelled out, a capital market based economy, a representative democratic structure, with universal franchise, and open and free elections. In Afghanistan it is very clear that this model will not happen.

Afghanistan has a traditional folk culture that has been governed if you will by what amounts to a tribal, clan, village, family oligarchies.

Some western thinking can be incorporated such as women’s rights and universal education and some western social institutions such as health care and state funded education but thats about the limits of westernization that can happen at this time in history.

The Afghan’s are not yet ready to establish a criminal legal system and commercial code that suits the west, and a true parliamentary type of government or other western political or economic institutions. The US has to live with that.

In short I think the US can put in place some western reforms but the basic structure of governance is, as it should be up to the Afghan’s.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

I am in full agreement with General McChrystal. Either fight and win the war the right way or get the hell out and leave it to the locals to fight for themselves. When are we going to learn. We keep fighting a limited war and more of our young and brave lose their lives.

When are they going to learn that the Afghan government is only using us. That is what it really boils down to. They aid and help the enemy.If they really wanted to be free of AlQ and Taliban they would prove it but they don’t. They just want what we can give. The real problem lays with Pakistan, they will not allow our troops in and work with theirs so they is the other problem.Keep in mind people NATO is behind all of this.

*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