A ‘Surge’ for Afghanistan.

[pcmfr]

Unfortunately, we are already too kinetic in Afghanistan. The EKIA count increases significantly every week, but then so does the overall population controlled by the Taliban. Meanwhile the real problems are being driven by actors across the borders to the West and East.

[Eden]

Given the current state of affairs in Afghanistan, sending more US Marines to this country would be throwing good money after bad. General Conway apparently shares several common but nevertheless mistaken apprehensions:

1. That the greatest threat to Afghanistan is the Taliban. The Taliban is a spent strategic force. In a few localities they retain their traditional support, but they have lost whatever nationwide appeal they may have once had. In many cases, they have become mere criminals, selling protection or working for the local drug lord. No, the longer-term threat to nation-building are the narcotic kings, regional power brokers, and semi-criminal entrepreneurs who have traditionally run affairs in the area. The only reason they have not vigorously opposed the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan is due to the sheer ineffectiveness of some of our allies. Relatively heavy fighting is largely restricted to the southern and eastern portions of the country not because it is a hotbed of Taliban support, but because those are the only areas where the Brits, Canadians, and Americans are making life difficult for those Afghans pursuing their traditional livelihoods: smuggling, extortion, and pissing in the river upstream from your neighbor. Elsewhere, bad guys are happy to accept western largesse so long as NATO doesn't actually interfere with them.

2. That more troops will make a difference. Well, a lot more troops might make a difference. But even thousands of Marines will not. I suspect we would do more of the same with them: Guard our own bases, fruitlessly chase bad guys over mountains, and pretend to secure the borders. Maybe if the thousands of troops were CA, medical, construction engineers, etc. But riflemen? They'd be wasted.

3. That we are making progress that should be reinforced. Afghanistan is better off than it was in 2002, but only because it started in the stone age. Economic growth rates of 10-13% a year are impressive until you realize the baseline was only slightly above zero, and I'm not sure even that measure of progress can be linked beyond anything we accomplished since running the Taliban out. Besides, few Afghans want a strong central government. Just as throughout most of their history, they prefer a weak central government that they can use as a prop against their neighbors.

Bottom line is that if our goal is to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland the reinforcements wouldn't be enough. If our goal is simply to keep Afghanistan relatively terrorist-free, what we have their now is sufficient.

[DaveDoyle]

Bottom line is that if our goal is to turn Afghanistan into Switzerland the reinforcements wouldn't be enough. If our goal is simply to keep Afghanistan relatively terrorist-free, what we have their now is sufficient.

I can't agree with this statement. What we have in the way of troop numbers (combat, combat support and combat service support) is NOT sufficient to keep Afghanistan relatively terrorist free. The troops there now are fighting to buy time for the Afghans, but the terrorists are the ones accelerating the struggle.

Our troops are operating at increased risk based on the slim margins that are currently accepted as the norm in Afghanistan. Lack of aviation assets for direct action missions, logistics, and medevac operations put our operations regularly at higher level of risk. Even PRT missions, and "humanitarian" efforts have to deal with this critical constraint.

Factor that with the size of the operating environment that our troops deal with and you can see that more Marines would be a good thing. In many cases platoons at combat outposts have enough personnel to conduct their own force protection mission and only periodic engagement with the villages and rural areas surrounding them. That's no way to build a rapport or collect intelligence, or assist Afghan security efforts.

A coordinated plan with MORE troops will make a difference - maybe not a Switzerland, but some place less inclined to support and produce terrorists with a global reach.

[wm]

I can't agree with this statement. What we have in the way of troop numbers (combat, combat support and combat service support) is NOT sufficient to keep Afghanistan relatively terrorist free. The troops there now are fighting to buy time for the Afghans, but the terrorists are the ones accelerating the struggle.

Our troops are operating at increased risk based on the slim margins that are currently accepted as the norm in Afghanistan. Lack of aviation assets for direct action missions, logistics, and medevac operations put our operations regularly at higher level of risk. Even PRT missions, and "humanitarian" efforts have to deal with this critical constraint.

Factor that with the size of the operating environment that our troops deal with and you can see that more Marines would be a good thing. In many cases platoons at combat outposts have enough personnel to conduct their own force protection mission and only periodic engagement with the villages and rural areas surrounding them. That's no way to build a rapport or collect intelligence, or assist Afghan security efforts.

A coordinated plan with MORE troops will make a difference - maybe not a Switzerland, but some place less inclined to support and produce terrorists with a global reach.

Two posts almost 9 months apart--situations change. What may have been true in 11/07 may now be OBE. Or, it could be that we (to include ISAF) still have sufficient forces in the AOR and are just not using them in an optimal fashion to accomplish the assigned mission(s).