Afghanistan troop surge could backfire, experts warn

[Ken White]

All relatively speaking of course -- and no intent to be derisory; merely to express some agreement and some disagreement. There have been messier wars, many -- and some we were involved in meet that standard. I doubt, by any measure it will ever be accorded 'greatness.'

I think any discussion of whether it's

"...classical guerrilla war as opposed to being part of a Fourth Generation War against al Quada."

is an esoteric and academic debate of little value. I also shudder when anyone mentions Malaya in relation to Iraq or Afghanistan. No corollary at all, I think -- mostly because our US preferred option is to establish a host nation government of whatever sort we can (preferably with a 'friendly' leader) and act as invitees of that government * . In Malaya, the British were the government, that fact alone, much less the size and numbers argue against any use of Malaya for much.

I strongly agree with you that a military victory is not possible; only an acceptable outcome can be obtained in any COIN operation. With that fact -- and it is a fact in today's world -- in mind, I believe that Obama, McCain, Gates, Spinney et.al. are wrong. We do not have enough troops to do the standard COIN model in a nation the size of Afghanistan. I further believe that even if we had the numbers, it would make little difference. There are other military options that could achieve success but we cannot and will not pursue them.

Afghanistan -- or that region -- has been the way it is for several thousand years. We are not going to change it. Period. They will chew up what is sent, spit it out and go right back to their way of life. Can incremental changes to improve the lot of the ordinary Afghan be pursued? Certainly. However, we should recognize up front those changes will be incremental -- and even those slight modifications will come slowly. While I essentially agree with the solutions you propose, I suggest that the entrenched bureaucracies (all of them, including the Afghan government, the NGOs, the other Nations involved, NATO, the US Army and USSOCOM) will not support the program, at least not to the extent required. Given the number of players, the possibility of achieving a consensus on procedures is unlikely. I also think you omit mention of the Pakistan problem and solution of that is critical.

Afghanistan will go the way of those who have the most will to stick it out. My reluctant and regrettable suspicion is that will not be the western nations.

* A solution that has never worked for us and one would think we'd learn better. Apparently not. Seems illogical to me to take on a job and willingly give the folks you're trying to change a veto over what you can do...

[Render]

Much talk from politicians and press of a “surge” into Afghanistan…

Very little talk of the logistical surge that must accompany such a surge in combat units.

It is my (civilian) understanding that the bulk of OEF’s heavy logistical supply arrives via truck convoys through Pakistan. Truck convoys that pass right through Taliban held Pakistani territory.

Given that we’re already conducting air strikes against Taliban training camps and leadership within that same Taliban held Pakistani territory, doesn’t this put us in the unhealthy position of attacking our own supply lines? Certainly at least one of the Presidential candidates has suggested that we do exactly that. Much as I would like to disagree with his stated strategy, he may very well be correct, if only by accident.

We may very well have to invade and occupy Pakistan, if for no other reason then to secure our supply lines into Afghanistan.

I don’t think two or three brigades will be enough…

A
BIGGER
BOAT,
R

[jkm_101_fso]

It is my (civilian) understanding that the bulk of OEF’s heavy logistical supply arrives via truck convoys through Pakistan. Truck convoys that pass right through Taliban held Pakistani territory.

Are you talking about US/NATO supply lines?

Given that we’re already conducting air strikes against Taliban training camps and leadership within that same Taliban held Pakistani territory, doesn’t this put us in the unhealthy position of attacking our own supply lines?

No. Most strikes have eyes on prior to/during strike, whether it's BOG, UAV or SAT. Think about what you asked. Attack our own supply line? Who else's supply line would it be? The Taliban's? A pretty far-fetched insinuation.

[Render]

Yes, I'm talking about US/NATO supply lines. It's my understanding that the bulk of the US/NATO supplies are trucked into Afghanistan - through Pakistan. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

=

My mistake and fair enough, that was poorly worded on my part.

I didn't mean to imply that we were actually attacking our own convoys in transit.

I was trying to point out that it seems as though we are attacking back down our own logistical tail, against an enemy whose current "safe" (loosely used term) havens inside Pakistan surround and in some cases sit astride our convoy routes.

I'm somewhat surprised that the Taliban haven't made a stronger effort to attack those convoys, although they seem to be more interested in attempting to extort the trucking companies involved, so I suppose my surprise is due mostly to my attempting to put a Western slant on Taliban strategy and tactics.

MISSION
FROM
GOD,
R

[Ron Humphrey]

Yes, I'm talking about US/NATO supply lines. It's my understanding that the bulk of the US/NATO supplies are trucked into Afghanistan - through Pakistan. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

=

My mistake and fair enough, that was poorly worded on my part.

I didn't mean to imply that we were actually attacking our own convoys in transit.

I was trying to point out that it seems as though we are attacking back down our own logistical tail, against an enemy whose current "safe" (loosely used term) havens inside Pakistan surround and in some cases sit astride our convoy routes.

I'm somewhat surprised that the Taliban haven't made a stronger effort to attack those convoys, although they seem to be more interested in attempting to extort the trucking companies involved, so I suppose my surprise is due mostly to my attempting to put a Western slant on Taliban strategy and tactics.

MISSION
FROM
GOD,
R

One could hopefully assume we try our best not to shoot ourselves in the foot.

I have it on the greatest authority that all our supplies are aquired through a horn of plenty in kabul with its twin located in a warehouse in west dakota

[jkm_101_fso]

Yes, I'm talking about US/NATO supply lines. It's my understanding that the bulk of the US/NATO supplies are trucked into Afghanistan - through Pakistan. Is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

I am certainly not in a position to say where our supplies come from, however, I'd bet that some do come from Pakistan; that is possible. I'd imagine, at least from the US side, most of them are flown in to Kandahar, Kabul, etc. I don't know, good question.

However, if the Taliban have not attacked said supply convoys, I'd assume that it's not that significant. I'm pretty sure they would have thought of that already. Again, based on assumption...could be talking out of my A$$.

[Render]

http://oruzgan.web-log.nl/uruzgan_we...n-attacks.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/...a/pakistan.php

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/...ctor-problems/

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129529

===

They're attacking the convoys already. Just not as much as I would expect...yet.

ISSUES,
R

[davidbfpo]

This interesting article: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH12Df02.html refers to

KARACHI - The Taliban and al-Qaeda have with some success squeezed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's)supply lines that run through Pakistan into Afghanistan, especially goods in transit in Khyber Agency on the border. Now, according to Asia Times Online contacts, the target area is being shifted to the southern port city of Karachi, where almost 90% of NATO's shipments land, including vital oil. From this teeming financial center, 80% of the goods go to Torkham in Khyber Agency on their way to the Afghan capital of Kabul. About 10% go to Chaman, then on to the northern Afghan city of Kandahar. The remaining NATO supplies arrive in Afghanistan by air and other routes.

I recall sometime ago that some NATO allies rely on supplies via Iran and this was taken to explain their reluctance over the US policy on Iran.

davidbfpo

[Render]

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...loses_tork.php

"Pakistan closed the Torkham border crossing in the Khyber tribal agency. The road through the Khyber Pass is NATO's primary supply line into Afghanistan."

===

As I said on Bill's blog...

Houston, we now have a problem.

NEED A
BIGGER
BOAT,
R

[reed11b]

What sort of tough line is available for the U.S. with Pakistan? They seem to be a major problem, rather than an asset in Afghanistan, as many predicted. Could require the loss of their nuclear capacity for any future funds? They wont go for it, but maybe they would back off from their tough guy stance on allowing U.S. troops to work in their border areas to gain some breathing room?
Reed