One of the most difficult challenges President-elect Barack Obama's national security team faces is Mr. Obama's vow to send thousands of American troops to help defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Military experts agree that more troops are required to carry out an effective counterinsurgency campaign, but they also caution that the reinforcements are unlikely to lead to the sort of rapid turnaround that the so-called troop surge in Iraq produced after its start in 2007.
After seven years of war, Afghanistan presents a unique set of problems: a rural-based insurgency, an enemy sanctuary in neighboring Pakistan, the chronic weakness of the Afghan government, a thriving narcotics trade, poorly developed infrastructure, and forbidding terrain...
Quoted are many COIN practitioners familiar to SWJ readers: Dr. David Kilcullen - Afghanistan may be the 'good war,' but it is also the harder war, Ali A. Jalali - Afghanistan is not Iraq... It is the theme park of problems, General David McKiernan - ... trying to develop a "bottom up" approach in which tribal elders, religious figures and other community leaders would form local councils that would be given the authority and resources to help with security, Colonel John Agoglia and Lieutenant Colonel Trent Scott - ... more American and international troops are needed to protect the Afghan population and hold ground that can eventually be handed off to expanded and better trained Afghan forces... They must deploy prepared for a long fight... They must think long term and realize that victory is unlikely on their watch. They must build a solid foundation on which their successors build on gains made.
Much more at The New York Times.
Comments
I'm still convinced a large number of additional troops is not the answer for Afghanistan but am reconciled to the fact that the American solution is to just throw more money at the problem...
This quote, however, is especially worrying:<blockquote>"They must deploy prepared for a long fight," Colonels Agoglia and Scott said in an e-mail message. "They must think long term and realize that victory is unlikely on their watch. They must build a solid foundation on which their successors build on gains made."</blockquote>If the Director of the COIN Training Center and his Deputy believe there's going to be a 'victory' in Afghanistan, I think we're in trouble.
I submit a reasonably satisfactory conclusion is possible but a victory is an unlikely occurrence. That's not just a semantic quibble, those are two very different things and the latter builds a totally unreasonable expectation on the part of all concerned and leads to false and dangerous choices.
A large number of additional troops being one of those. We simply do not have the manpower -- nor does NATO -- to provide enough troops to properly clear and hold so partial clear and hold will continue with little change and that leads to the Colonel Agoglia's "long fight." I applaud his good intentions. I wish I was nearly as sure of the good intentions of the politicians who will determine exactly how long that fight will continue...