Quote Originally Posted by AEI Squirrel View Post
There is no necessary contradiction between Mike Vickers' quite sensible long-term approach to Afghanistan - of course, a decisive outcome can only be achieved by the Afghans themselves - and the need for a short-term plus-up of forces in the south, particularly in Helmand and Kandahar.
Didn't say there was, my point was only that AEI, like most other tanks, has ideas that may or may not have merit. My perception of AEI is that they get some right and some wrong but that they generally have an agenda. That agenda may or may not coincide with that of the Prez -- or mine . It also may accord priorities in a different order than some. Is a sustained effort in Afghanistan going to be enhanced by a short term surge that will exacerbate the stretching of the force? AEI thinks yea, I think nay.
The 2009 and 2010 (per the current calendar) elections in Afghanistan are important points of deflection. Current conditions would not allow those elections to be held safely in the south (remember that the polling must be verified by the UN to be seen as legitimate).
I can remember that the polling must be verified by the UN in the eyes of some to be seen as legitimate...
The British and Canadian contingents who are doing all the hard fighting in the south would welcome additional capabilities and numbers they simply don't have
Not all, most. I'm sure they would appreciate more help. Most commanders will ask for more troops at the slightest provocation -- or with no provocation
the government in Kabul also sees this as a crucial time and would welcome an additional US commitment (and there's not really any other force available and even a US "surge" would be limited by strains on the force).[
Yep. To both points.
While I now work at AEI, I was also once was the editor of Army Times (and was lucky enough to have hired Sean Naylor in the first place)...
And be assured, we won't hold that against you. We all have some things in pour past...
Remember, Vickers' speech did not mention the AEI work and sounds to me like the kind of approach that he's long advocated. I also think it's likely that Mike understands that in the course of "building partnership capacity" in Afghanistan there may be moments where a more direct helping hand is required; the need to conduct successful elections - and to begin to set the conditions for that now - seems like one of those moments.
Probably true.
The esteemed readers of this journal should have a more sophisticated understanding of the way Us policy is made and ought to be wary of conspiracy theories - it's the bureaucratic equivalent of Okham's Razor: never explain by conspiracy what you can explain as confusion or incompetence.
I'm certainly not esteemed but I can assure you I discard conspiracy theories for the almost certain problems of incompetence or, more common, extreme bureaucratic stupidity.

I just think the surge idea(s) and 'more boots on the ground' mentality are incorrect. These things take time and overstretching the force will not appreciably speed them up, ergo, it's sort of wasted effort. Your 'surge' in Iraq may speed things up slightly but that's about all it'll do. Afghanistan, OTOH, is not amenable to a speed up. Different strokes, as they say.

The real problem is which boots are where and doing what, not how many there are.

It should be noted that, in some respects anyway, we're getting better and smarter about that everyday...