Obama's "mini surge"
Daniel Korski 3:26pm
President Obama’s decision to deploy 12,000 more combat forces and 5,000 support personnel to the Afghan mission has drawn huge attention. USA Today’s front-page headline blares “Obama’s war: Deploying 17,000, the president raises the stakes in Afghanistan.” But the US soldiers were already planned to rotate into the theatre and, though the White House is keen to portray this as a Commander in Chief moment and the President making good on his campaign promises, it does not represent a new US Afghan policy. That policy is still being drawn up by Bruce Riedel, the former CIA analyst and Iran expert.
In the end, more troops will be needed. But they won’t be enough. New tactics will also be required. If the aim is to win over the population, the primary objective of the military must be to secure the population and its activities, to counter intimidation from insurgents, to allow reconstruction to take place, and to secure legal economic production and exchange. Doing so will probably require foreign troops to embed themselves ever more closely with the Afghan military, getting out among the people, staffing security stations and patrolling neighbourhoods together with the Afghan army. As General Petraeus likes to say, ‘you can’t commute to the fight.’
But a new political strategy is needed as well. The upcoming presidential elections need to be secured, divisions within the Taliban need to be exploited, the training of both the Afghan army (ANA) and the Afghan police improved and the Pakistani border stabilized.
Coupled with a military surge, such a civilian surge could make a difference. It will not create a democratic, liberalising state. But it could prevent Al Qaeda from using Afghanistan for its activities, contain the Taliban insurgency and create the basis for a pre-Westphalian state that acts against existential threats but has to negotiate its power, access and ability to deliver (limited) services. This would, over time, improve the lives of Afghans and allow the coalition, in several years time, to begin to shift its work from military operations to political mentoring.
Previous
Scott
February 18th, 2009 4:23pm Report this commentAfghanistan could be the easiest measure to be used to determine who (GW/BO) got it right.
GW won in Iraq but will this be followed by BO losing in Afghanistan?
Certainly the Democrats have form on surrendering (or at least wanting to surrender when the tough had to get going), and given the fact that Obama has only ever voted against party lines ONCE what do you think the chances will be of President Light Worker (tm) vetoing any Democratic surrender bill?
Liz Brown
February 18th, 2009 4:37pm Report this commentoh dear, he's not mutaating into gormless already?
David Lindsay
February 18th, 2009 5:16pm Report this commentYet more American forces to Afghanistan.
In the name of God, WHY?
Oh well, just so long as we don't use them.
London Calling
February 18th, 2009 5:17pm Report this commentFirstly I would like to congratulate our forces in Afghanistan who seized 50 million pounds worth of heroin in operation diesel, well done!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1148484/British-soldiers-seize-heroin-worth-50m-Afgh
Any surge of allied troops in Afghanistan is good news and no doubt more will be needed. Pakistan will experience a larger surge by the Taliban compared to what it is already experiencing, what cannot be allowed though is for Pakistan to be weak on their side, the south is currently seeing a steady stream of Taliban moving down creating a haven for them to re-group.
Pakistan has sent 9000 troops to stem the south and hopefully they will commit more.
More troops is better than less, but even more will speed up operations to achieve full control and remove the power base from the Taliban in Afghanistan.
porkbelly
February 18th, 2009 5:24pm Report this commentCan we now expect the rest of NATO to announce their additional troop deployments to Afghanistan? After all, the Messiah assured us that with the hated Bush regime gone Europe would be eager to help. The Taliban are doubtless quaking in their sandals in the knowledge that they will soon be facing battle-hardened Dutchmen...
Susan Hill
February 18th, 2009 6:02pm Report this commentAsk the Russians why they LOST their war in Afghanistan. It was bloody and ignominious and their troop losses were large, and all to no purpose. They would probably counsel the USA that they are on a hiding to nothing.
RW
February 18th, 2009 7:41pm Report this commentre Susan Hill, 6.02pm:
"The occupation was a catalogue of errors, disasters and difficulties, which following close on each other disgusted our officers, disheartened our soldiers and finally sunk us all into irretrievable ruin."
(Young British officer in Afghanistan, 1841).
The occupation and subsequent chaotic retreat with 16000 lives lost in 1842 was one of the worst British military disasters of the 19th century.
Those who forget history...
frank goddard
February 18th, 2009 8:13pm Report this commentSusan Hill:
I have been saying all along that Afghanistan will become a graveyard for Uk/US forces.You are quite right about the Russians,but it was the Mothers of the poor conscripts that were slaughtered,12000 of them,that won the day for the withdrawal of Russian forces.Will our soldiers mothers and wives have to do the same? Is Afghanistan worth it? For what? Oh yes of course the cocaine,and the Terrorists,plus the safegaurd of the West Pakistani border,now there's a laugh.When are our politicians going to understand that their culture and thousands of years mindset is not going to change to a western culture no matter how many troops are sent there.
GET OUT NOW and let them sort out their own freedoms as they know them,its not our business,it has no strategic value for the Uk,its a UN problem.
Frank G.....English pensioner
Stephen
February 18th, 2009 10:28pm Report this commentAnyone with any knowledge of history (i.e. not our present Government) will know that any outside power that gets in volved in Afghanistan LOSES - and loses badly and pointlessly. Time to cut our losses.
And anyway - why target Afghanistan while Pakistan is at least as dangerous, if not more so?
Alan Lawson
February 19th, 2009 5:53am Report this commentSnide comments about 'battle hardened Dutchmen' reveal the normal level of ignorance here in Afghanistan, where the UK Forces in Helmand are part of Regional Command South, commanded by - of course - a (rather competent) Dutch General. Some Allies are doing their bit - Canada, Australia, Netherlands, USA - but many others aren't. Meanwhile, until Karzai goes, things will not really improve, no matter how many soldiers are here. The Afghans are thoroughly fed up with their own astonishingly corrupt Government and can't wait for a change.
jim
February 19th, 2009 10:58am Report this commentMaybe Obama needs to take over the heroin supply to bail out America's banks. Good plan. A few thousand dead folks don't count in the great scheme of things.
Back to top