A ‘Surge’ for Afghanistan.
Gordon Lubold in today’s Christian Science Monitor - A ‘Surge’ for Afghanistan.
Quote:
The top general of the Marine Corps is pushing hard to deploy marines to Afghanistan as he looks to draw down his forces in Iraq, but his proposal, which is under discussion at the Pentagon this week, faces deep resistance from other military leaders.
Commandant Gen. James Conway's plan, if approved, would deploy a large contingent of Marines to Afghanistan, perhaps as early as next year. The reinforcements would be used to fight the Taliban, which US officials concede is now defending its territory more effectively against allied and Afghan forces.
Within the Pentagon, General Conway's proposal has led to speculation about which, if any, American forces would be best suited to provide reinforcements for a mission that, most agree, has far more political appeal than the one in Iraq. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already recommended against the proposal, at least for now, a military official said Tuesday…
Conway says that Marines, who have been largely responsible for calming Anbar Province in Iraq, can either return home or "stay plugged into the fight" by essentially redeploying to Afghanistan...
Rick Rogers, San Diego Union-Tribune, on USMC current operations in Anbar, Iraq and implications for the Afghanistan mission - Marines' Duties go Well Beyond Combat.
Quote:
... some Marine commanders and defense specialists question whether the Corps' expeditionary combat strengths are being wasted in Anbar. The Marines are revered for their offensive capabilities, said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer at the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va.
“At some point, we are going to have to ask why are we sending a quick-strike force to do nation building. It really would make more sense to send them to Afghanistan to chase insurgents than to have them helping locals in Anbar province build schools,” Thompson said.
“If the mission becomes more reconstruction, then it is more of an Army job,” he added.
The proposal for handing Marines the lead combat role in Afghanistan has been espoused by senior commanders such as Lt. Gen. [General] James Mattis, Helland's immediate predecessor at Camp Pendleton...
Surge Not Answer in Afghanistan
Surge Not Answer in Afghanistan at SWJ Blog.
Quote:
Michael VIckers, the principal strategist for the paramilitary operation that drove the Soviet army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s and today the top Pentagon adviser on counterterrorism strategy (ASD SOLIC), says the key to success in Iraq and Afghanistan is through “the indirect approach” - working “by, with and through” host-nation forces — rather than “surges” of U.S. troops according to an article in Army Times - Surge not answer in Afghanistan - by Sean Naylor.
Hopefully, this and the next Administration
will listen to Vickers and not to the squirrels AEI.
It took us nine years in Viet Nam to realize that giving the South Viet Namese second hand stuff, little to no training help and short shrift so we could do it all was just really dumb. Surely we aren't going to go down that road again...
Are we?
Although that might be tried
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
If we leave the Afghan Army in charge, won't the Taliban bribe the generals with drug money and make them look the other way?
There would not likely be many who took the bribe expecting to have everything be honky dory once the Taliban took power again. They have not been out of power long enough for the Afghans to forget how they run things. Couple that with the fact that their return would equal the elimination of many, many who have helped fight against them and I don't think you find a peoples too terribly excited about a return regardless how they may feel at the moment.
No more than they would if we were in charge.
A presence of westerners who do not do business in the south asian way deters a lot of that (but not all). The presence will be required for a long time, old habits fie hard...
Doctrine does not say that, common wisdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rank amateur
If we're needed for a long time, how do we determine the optimal number of troops? Doesn't doctrine say that COIN is very labor intensive?
does, sort of; it postulates about 20 COIN personnel including police per 1,000 of population. The figure ranges from 18 to 35 depending on which version you wish to believe, that gives a median of 27, err on the side of caution and go with 20, any combination of either allies or host nation.
They need to do it, we just need to help.
a temp surge is a good thing
Face it a surge is simply a reinforcement in order to regain or recapture the momentum that was/is being lost to a "surge" re-SURGEnt opposing force. The ability for a commander in the field to call for and recieve local reinforcement is very improtant. The main issue will be the duration and the question that will linger-will more FORIEGN troops be needed. I believe the stated concept of the USMC reinforcement of the Afghan effort is clearly the right design. A MEU to reinfore the NATO combat effort and a BN reinforced to reinforce the training and assistance effort. These are smart moves. The timing is also right as it will reinforce prior to the warm weather and carry through the historically most dangerous months.
The bottomline, the US and NATO need to hold the line long enough and push back the Taliban enough to allow Afghan forces to train and equip to stand on their own. How long and at what cost are still to be determined. BUT a reinforcement to regain momentum and get the effort through a danger zone is a smart thing to do.
-T