Afghanistan troop surge could backfire, experts warn

[DaveDoyle]

Clearly an increased international effort that uses all instruments of national power is in order for Afghanistan. And reading political tea leaves, I would suggest the increased effort is in the works. The effort cannot be divorced from increased resouces of all types. Thus, leaders working in Afghanistan need more capability which can be provided in part by more Soldiers, Airmen and Marines from our country and others. Speaking from experience, many operations (if not most) are being run on a shoestring. I too am wary of the idea that the "surge" that worked in Iraq should easily work in Afghanistan. However, a "surge" at this point would merely add forces that are sorely needed for a baseline effort.

[Eden]

Clearly an increased international effort that uses all instruments of national power is in order for Afghanistan. And reading political tea leaves, I would suggest the increased effort is in the works. The effort cannot be divorced from increased resouces of all types. Thus, leaders working in Afghanistan need more capability which can be provided in part by more Soldiers, Airmen and Marines from our country and others. Speaking from experience, many operations (if not most) are being run on a shoestring. I too am wary of the idea that the "surge" that worked in Iraq should easily work in Afghanistan. However, a "surge" at this point would merely add forces that are sorely needed for a baseline effort.

Amen. Afghanistan has one-third the number of troops that are currently in Iraq - if you count all nations, some of which are doing very little to contribute to success. And they were short of everything from UAVs to artillery to helicopters. To give you some idea of the scale, when I was there in 06-07, there was the rough equivalent of an MP battalion, several infantry companies, and some SF trying to interdict the Afghan-Pakistani border. This incredibly rugged border, if placed in the United States, would stretch from Chicago to somewhere near Memphis.

So - absolutely right we are strategically bankrupt in Afghanistan; it certainly would make sense to have a plan for using any additional forces we send over there. But there is no conceivable plan that would work given the current troop levels. We need both a plan and the troops.

[Rank amateur]

We need both a plan and the troops.

Yes and the plan must eliminate - or at least severely curtail - sanctuary in Pakistan. One of the keys to defeating insurgencies is to remove their ability to control their loss rate and you can't do that if they can hide in Pakistan.

[Cougfootballfan]

perhaps with Gen Petraeus taking over as the head of CENTCOM there will start to be a broader plan for how to deal with the resurgent terrorists similar to his actions as head of the 101st and commander of Multi-National forces

[Norfolk]

No plan for Afghanistan will work without unity of command: so forget NATO, start pushing its command structure into the margins (preferably into Kabul and its environs, and tell the UN to move over and make room there); and give exclusive control of all US and willing non-US forces (there won't be many, so at least there might be a minimum of friction in that regard) to a single U.S. command with authority for all of Afghanistan. But stick with NATO and the present command structure, and everything that follows is throwing good after bad.

[Entropy]

The problem, IMO, is a lack of coherent and achievable strategic goals in Afghanistan borne of a fundamental misunderstanding of the region.

Let's assume for a minute the Afghan government becomes relatively enduring and stable and that a large, capable and mostly self-sufficient National Army is created. At that point, Afghanistan will be the rough equivalent of where Pakistan is today. And just like Pakistan, it will be incapable of controlling large swaths of its own territory. And getting to that point (stable government, national Army) is a long way off if it happens at all.

[Danny]

Of course we need a coherent strategy. As for the other subject, increasing troop levels (for which I have argued for half a year at my place) and killing Taliban will fix the problems with the Taliban.

I am not so worried about the overall problems with Afghanistan. We cannot construct an electrical grid there when our own bridges are collapsing and our infrastructure needs tending to.

Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries on earth, and 90% Muslim, but without any of the religious radicalism. Poverty doesn't create religious radicalism. That's just a myth.

I am all for trying to bring stability to Afghanistan and spending the resources to do so, but there is a limit to what we are able to accomplish there. Besides, we could spend until we ourselves were broke, and without ending the religious extremism, all we will have created will be rich religious extremists.