The case for 40,000
James Forsyth 6:42pm
As President Obama continues to consider his options on Afghanistan, The New York Times has a good primer on what the military could do with the various levels of reinforcements being considered. This is what the military believes it could do with an extra 40,000 troops:
The coalition needs to drastically change the dynamics in Afghanistan. As the counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen argued in a speech last week, the Taliban has proved effective at responding to a gradual build up of Coalition forces and would likely be able to cope with up to an extra 30,000 troops. So, taking the medium option would court disaster. It is hard to see how public support can be maintained for the war if this surge fails to produce results."Should President Obama decide to send 40,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, the most ambitious plan under consideration at the White House, the military would have enormous flexibility to deploy as many as 15,000 troops to the Taliban center of gravity in the south, 5,000 to the critical eastern border with Pakistan and 10,000 as trainers for the Afghan security forces.The rest could be deployed flexibly across the country, including to the NATO headquarters in Kabul, the capital, and in clandestine operations.
If Mr. Obama limited any additional American troops to 10,000 to 15,000, the military would deploy them largely as trainers, with some reinforcements likely in the southern province of Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home. The neighboring, and opium-rich, Helmand Province and the eastern border with Pakistan, military analysts say, would receive few if any American troops and would remain largely as they are today."
Previous
Jeremy
November 23rd, 2009 7:56pm Report this commentDear James,
I realise this is a hard, gruelling conflict in the course of which great demands have been made of us all - a conflict in which one must set aside personal interests and pleasures in order to muck in and do one's duty by one's fellows, therebye helping to reduce the burden placed upon all. It is in this spirit that I would like to volunteer myself for the poppy fields duty. I feel my service in this role would not only plug a gap in your strategy, but would also help put an end to the dreadful vice of sniffing opium dust in the sunshine.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy
TrevorsDen
November 23rd, 2009 8:01pm Report this commentSending 10,000 'trainers' is tantamount to Obama sending mullah Wotsit a letter saying 'I surrender'.
It will also fire the starting pistol on a public enquiry which will make the Iraq War enquiry look like an edition of Listen With Mother.
Abraham
November 23rd, 2009 8:36pm Report this commentResults???!!! Like we had in Iraq? What are you talking about. This war won't end with results, it will end when we get fed up with throwing cash down a black hole and seeing coffins draped in flags.
Do you think we are fighting an enemy over some teritory?? We are fighting a never ending supply of "enemy" and each one we kill inspires two more to pick up arms and move to where ever there is a fight going on. Iraq, Afghanistan, where ever. it won't ever end it will just go away for a bit until some idiot politician starts it up again
The Masked Marvel
November 23rd, 2009 10:04pm Report this commentJames, this is all maneuvering for total, blameless withdrawal. Not difficult to figure out.
Austin Barry
November 24th, 2009 8:31am Report this comment"It is hard to see how public support can be maintained for the war if this surge fails to produce results."
Eh? There is no public support to maintain.
ndm
November 24th, 2009 9:02am Report this commentIt is all fine and dandy asking for 40,000 troops - the problem is finding them. Spencer Ackerman opened an article in the Washington Independent last week with:
If President Obama orders an additional 30,000 to 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, he will be deploying practically every available U.S. Army brigade to war, leaving few units in reserve in case of an unforeseen emergency and further stressing a force that has seen repeated combat deployments since 2002.
According to information compiled by the U.S. Army for The Washington Independent about the deployment status of active-duty and National Guard Army brigades, as of December 2009, there will be about 50,600 active-duty soldiers, serving in 14 combat brigades, and as many as 24,000 National Guard soldiers available for deployment. All other soldiers and National Guardsmen will either be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan already or ineligible to deploy while they rest from a previous deployment.
Yarnesfromhorsham
November 24th, 2009 9:10am Report this commentAgree with Abraham. Having allowed over 6m immigrants (plus the illegals)into the UK since 2000 the terror is here already.
Ian Walker
November 24th, 2009 11:46am Report this commentAustin: I for one support the war. It's been poorly managed up to now, but it's entirely necessary.
I hope the people calling for a pull-out will be happy when a suicide bomber sneak a Pakistani nuke up Tower 42.
Austin Barry
November 24th, 2009 1:01pm Report this commentIan Walker 11:46 am
"I hope the people calling for a pull-out will be happy when a suicide bomber sneak a Pakistani nuke up Tower 42."
Which surely suggests that the real battlefield is, or should be, Pakistan and its diaspora in Leed, Luton and London.
Dave Grayson
November 24th, 2009 2:57pm Report this commentWhen do we get the idea that you can't fight mountain men in mountains whatever the race, got something to do with the thin mountain air.It is time to get the hell out and let them sort their own mess out, and we sort our own backyard out
We have nothing to preach about have a look at how we have traeted our kids over the decades The Stolen Generations, The Forgotten Australians etc violence, drug and alcohol abuse and child abuse still happening, porn and depravity, the priests of all dominions and their abuse of kids We are all living in paranoia Send the leaders in first from both sides and see how many wars we get The US economy revolves around conflict and weapons was done since WW2
Dave
from downunder
Back to top